Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Directed Workers

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Essential Work Order appeal body at York, wrongly heard on 3rd October last an appeal by Mr. F. W. Batley, whose case was appropriate to the War Office Substitute Appeals Committee; that on the National Service officer ordering Mr. Batley's reinstatement following the appeal, the War Department, as employer, refused, but placed him under an industrial employee, with forfeiture of all overtime in breach of instructions and in circumstances where there was very little work to do; and whether he will specially investigate this case and ensure that in future his National Service officers follow the correct procedure in such cases.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I regret that Mr. Batley's case was not heard by the appropriate appeal body, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is arranging for it to be re-heard by the War Department Substituted Appeal Committee. I am taking steps to try to avoid a recurrence of an error of this kind.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in cases where there is a difference of opinion between the family doctor and the medical referee employed by his Ministry as to the fitness of a person to undertake work in respect of which a direction has been issued by his depart-

ment, arrangements can be made to refer such cases to an independent medical arbitrator instead of leaving local appeal boards, composed of laymen, to adjudicate between conflicting medical opinions as is the present practice.

Mr. Bevin: The medical referee is an independent examiner, nominated for the purpose by a local medical war committee. Local appeal boards realise this, and normally accept his opinion; if, however, they so desire, they may ask for a further examination, if necessary, by a specialist.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Arising out of that reply may I ask what happens if the aggrieved applicant is dissatisfied with the decision, and wants to make a further appeal?

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour in what circumstances authority has been given to Government Departments, and through them to employers, to circumvent the operation of the Essential Work Order by permitting them to apply to headquarters in advance of applying to the National Service officer for permission to discharge individuals engaged in scheduled undertakings as, under this arrangement, his Ministry takes steps to ensure that the National Service officer gives permission to discharge, thereby fettering his discretion, and instructs employers not to attend the hearing of appeals against discharges, and neither the workers nor the appeal boards are informed of the grounds of the discharge.

Mr. Bevin: On very rare occasions it has been found necessary in the interests of security that certain information should be handled by the headquarters of Departments and not by local offices and local appeal boards.

Mr. Brown: Is it right and proper that men should be discharged from employment without having their case heard by a tribunal, or even knowing the character of the charge against them; and is it necessary in the interests of security to do that?

Mr. Bevin: It has been found necessary during the war on several occasions to do that.

Mr. Brown: In these circumstances, is there anything to prevent an employer


getting rid of a man on the ground that security is involved, the man having no opportunity of knowing the charge against him?

Mr. Bevin: It is only through Government Departments and where workers are on special security work.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a young woman was directed, on 27th November, by the employment exchange, Brynmawr, Breconshire, to employment at High Wycombe, and the undertaking to meet her at Paddington and High Wycombe was not observed; and will he take steps to see that such arrangements are carried out and authorise an enquiry into the system of direction to employment from the local Phœnix factory by the same exchange.

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made into this case and will write to my hon. Friend.

Redundant Workers

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the many resolutions on redundancy sent to him, including one from workers employed at Scottish Aviation, Limited, Greenock factory, sent to him by the honourable Member for West Fife; and if he has any statement to make.

Mr. Bevin: I have considered the resolutions to which the hon. Member refers, including the one which he has sent me. The absorption into alternative employment of workers released on redundancy from war work is part of the problem of change-over from war to civilian production which was debated yesterday.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the workers in a big West of Scotland factory, faced with redundancy, make the statement that, when the Russians have a victory, they fire 300 guns, but, when the British have a victory, they fire 300 workers; and will he take steps to deal with that situation?

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement as to the future use of factories operated in the North-west by Messrs. Rootes, saying how the Government propose to

absorb the labour which will become redundant when the factories discontinue their present type of production.

Mr. Bevin: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is examining alternative proposals for the use of this factory with a view to the employment on civilian production of workers no longer required for war or other essential work. Apart from any new production which may be placed at this factory, at present no general difficulty is being experienced in submitting for alternative employment workers released from this factory.

Mr. Kirby: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, will he appreciate that this is a matter of great importance to those concerned?

Servicemen's Mothers (Leave Periods)

Mr. T. J. Brooks: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give authority for mothers to have reasonable leave of absence from their employment when their sons are on leave from military duties and allow the same facilities and conditions to mothers as to wives of serving men, as personal comfort is just as necessary in the home for single men as the married men.

Mr. Bevin: This is a matter for arrangement between the worker and the management, but I am sure that employers will continue to do their best to allow reasonable leave of absence in such circumstances.

Mr. Brooks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these mothers have to be out at work all day, and that sometimes they even have to work overtime, leaving the boys without their help and comfort in the home; and will the statement he has made be made known?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot prescribe this legally, but I am sure that my answer will have the desired effect.

Basic Industries (Absenteeism)

Mr. Donald Scott: asked the Minister of Labour what is the weekly average of absenteeism in industries other than coal-mining and particularly in the basic industries of cotton, iron, steel and engineering for the year 1943, distinguishing the absenteeism of men and women.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available.

Mr. Scott: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it only fair to the miners that comparable figures should be given for other industries?

Mr. Bevin: In the mining industry, of course, the figures are supplied—I sometimes think that they get an overdose of statistics—but for me to do it over a wide range of industries would involve great numbers of staff which I can ill afford for the purpose at the moment.

Major Woolley: How is it that the Minister of Fuel and Power can say that absenteeism in the mining industry is no greater than in other industries, if the figures for other industries are not known?

Mr. Bevin: My hon. and gallant Friend had better address that question to the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Discharged Workers (Reinstatement)

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to ensure automatic reinstatement in the case of a worker who obtains a unanimous decision from a local appeal board against granting the employer permission to discharge when the discharge has already taken place with the permission of the National Service officer.

Mr. Bevin: Local appeal boards make recommendations to the National Service officer; they do not give decisions. I propose to continue my present practice of accepting the boards' recommendations, in all save the most exceptional cases, including recommendations the acceptance of which involves a worker being reinstated.

Mr. Fraser: Should we not get to know whether these boards have statutory authority? Is it not true that, in nearly all cases—as in all the cases that have come to my knowledge—where a man gets an unfavourable decision, he has no right of appeal, but, when he gets a favourable decision, it sometimes happens that the Minister refuses to accept that decision?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. I announced to the House when these boards were set up that they were advisory to me, and that

I have the final responsibility to this House in these matters. I can assure my hon. Friend that, if that was given up, many of these cases would reach a dead-lock. There have been many cases with which I have been able to deal effectively in the manner I have shown.

Mr. Fraser: Some time ago, when I asked a Question about these boards, did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me that I must accept the boards' decision when it is unfavourable?

Mr. Bevin: No. I have always made it clear that they make recommendations to me and that unless there are exceptional circumstances, I accept them.

Mr. Fraser: On a point of Order. So that there may be some elucidation of the functions of these boards, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Incapacitated Mineworker (Compensation)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a coal-mines ballottee, unaccustomed to manual labour, after working underground for a few weeks has been incapacitated for several months medically certified through being so tall that he has to walk and work underground stooping; that he cannot claim workmen's compensation, nor declare on health insurance benefit, not being insured long enough, nor claim unemployment insurance, being incapable of following any employment, and has not therefore drawn any funds from any source and is living with his widowed mother; and will he see to it that such factors are borne in mind in determining the kind of mining work for ballottees.

Mr. Bevin: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the case he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister be good enough to bear in mind that this boy is very much afraid that something worse might befall him if his name were disclosed? Will the Minister consider the position of these very tall boys for work at the pithead? I have the case of another boy 6 ft. 5 in. tall.

Mr. Bevin: I rather regret my hon. Friend's suggestion that, if he gives me the name of the citizen, that citizen will


be, in any way, prejudiced thereby. I gather that that is the inference to be drawn from his remarks. How can I deal with the case if I do not know the person's name? I will look into any case which hon. Members bring to me, with a desire to do what is right.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that miners have never been selected on account of their height?

Paint Industry

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the need for domestic paints, if he proposes to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure in their Eighth Report on the activities of the miscellaneous chemical control, and cancel the lists of selected firms receiving preferential treatment with regard to their labour.

Mr. Bevin: In view of the increased demand for paint for houses, I have decided, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, to cancel the lists and to apply the same rules with regard to the deferment and withdrawal of labour throughout the paint industry.

Discharged Women Workers

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Labour what information interviewers at employment exchanges are expected to obtain from women who have been discharged from war work and who are seeking re-employment.

Mr. Bevin: In considering for war work any woman who is liable under the Registration for Employment Order, it is the duty of the interviewing officer to obtain such information as to her qualifications, experience and personal circumstances as is necessary to ensure her placing to the best advantage in the national interest. No special considerations arise in the case of women who are redundant as a result of changes in munitions programmes.

Engineering Training Centres (Women)

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour if women are still being directed for training at engineering training centres.

Mr. Bevin: It has recently been decided to discontinue the recruitment of women for training in these Centres except for

the draughtsmanship, instrument-making and motor mechanics classes.

Mr. Burke: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the case of a woman who has been touring the Middle East with E.N.S.A., and who has been brought from Ipswich to Burnley recently and directed into training?

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the case, I will look into it.

Cement Works (Rates of Pay)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in Nelson's Cement Works at Stockton, Kayes Cement Works at Stockton, Rugby Portland Cement Works, New Bilton, and Harbury Cement Works, Bishops Itchington, the average rate of pay of the men engaged is less than £4 a week; and whether, since these works enjoy the protection of the Essential Work Order, he will take steps to see them brought up to a higher level.

Mr. Bevin: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Aircraft Factories (Volunteer Workers)

Mr. J. J. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men serving in the R.A.F. were urgently invited, in 1941, to volunteer for work in aircraft factories and that such volunteers were given papers on going to the factories specifically stating that the period of release would count as service towards their current engagement; and whether, in view of this pledge, he will now agree that any man temporarily released will have that period counted for service.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. To regard work performed under ordinary civilian conditions by men on release to industry as service which can be counted for priority of release from the Forces would be most unfair to the other members of the Forces.

Mr. Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend answer that part of the Question which asks if he is aware that in the R.A.F. men who volunteered for service in the factories were given a guarantee that the period of release would count towards their current service?

Mr. Bevin: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Lawson: If I give my right hon. Friend a case, will be consider it?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING SCHEME (LEAFLET)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many people have had difficulty in obtaining the leaflet P.L.120 which gives particulars of the Further Education and Training Scheme, and that copies of this information are issued singly only from Ministry of Labour employment exchanges and from education officers in His Majesty's forces; and whether steps will be taken to make this important information more easily available through trade unions, professional institutions and other similar bodies.

Mr. Bevin: The scope of the Further Education and Training Scheme has so far been confined to men and women discharged from their war service on medical grounds, and steps have been taken to bring the leaflet to their notice. Copies of the leaflet have also been sent on request to other individuals and to trade unions, professional institutions and similar bodies. The scheme will come into full operation on the cessation of hostilities in Europe and I am arranging for bulk supplies of the leaflet to be made available in the near future to all bodies whose members are likely to be interested in the Scheme.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in leaflet P.L. 120, which describes the Government Further Education and Training Scheme, there is no specific reference in paragraph 2 to scientific and technical training and education; and whether he will give an assurance that the omission is not deliberate and that this branch of education will receive as much attention as any of those named.

Mr. Bevin: Although not specifically mentioned in the leaflet, courses of scientific and technical training are included among the courses which will equip men and women to fill the higher posts in industry, commerce and the professions. I am hoping to issue a revised leaflet at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC SERVICE

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Labour when the report of Miss Markham and Miss Hancock on the future proposals of domestic service will be published.

Mr. Bevin: I am actively considering this report in conjunction with my colleagues, and am not yet in a position to make any statement about its publication.

Mrs. Keir: Does the Minister think that a decision will be reached before the end of the year?

Mr. Bevin: I would not like to promise it before the end of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RECONVERSION

Mining Trainees

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Labour if he can give an assurance that after conclusion of the war with Germany, mining trainees who desired at their call-up to join the fighting services, will have an opportunity of transferring.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. So far as I can see at present, it will be necessary to keep these young men in coalmining, but they will not be so retained compulsorily beyond the date at which they would have been released from the Forces if they had been called up.

Ex-Service Personnel (Alternative Work)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in cases where members of the forces return and find their former employment no longer in existence, he will take the necessary steps to see that alternative work of a similar kind, or as near to it as possible, is provided for them.

Mr. Bevin: In cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers all possible steps will be taken to place the men and women concerned in suitable employment.

Dr. Little: Cannot my right hon. Friend make it known, that these men will be dealt with in this way, so as to relieve their minds?

Control of Engagement Order

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour how many men he estimates


will be restricted to making engagements through his Ministry or approved agencies under the Control of Engagement Order, proposed in Cmd. 6568, whose engagements are not so restricted under existing Orders; and whether he will exempt professional, clerical and domestic workers from restriction at least to the extent to which they now enjoy exemption.

Mr. Bevin: It is not at present possible to give an estimate of the numbers involved since the question of exceptions to the proposed Order is under consideration.

Sir J. Mellor: Under these proposals will not almost all black-coated male workers between the ages of 18 and 50 be restricted, for the first time, to obtaining employment through the Ministry?

Mr. Bevin: Very large numbers will. Until we get out of the man-power problem of this war, I am afraid it will be inevitable.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not that inconsistent with the declared policy of the Government to narrow the field of compulsion after the end of the war with Germany?

Mr. Bevin: Oh, no, Sir. At present they are under direction right up to the age of 65.

Engagement Restriction Order (Advertisement, Solihull)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour why his head office prohibited "The Builder" from publishing an advertisement for a senior architectural assistant, submitted by the Solihull Urban District Council and approved by his local office, upon recommendation by the Ministry of Health; and why his department permitted the same advertisement to be published elsewhere.

Mr. Bevin: I am advised that in general the Undertakings (Restriction on Engagement) Order applies to the surveyor's or engineer's department of a local authority, and that consequently advertisements for senior architectural assistants in such departments are as a rule illegal. The Solihull urban district council applied to the local office of my Department for permission to advertise the post referred to and permission was given, as I am advised, mistakenly, and I am informed by the council that advertisements did in fact appear in certain newspapers and journals. Upon

"The Builder" applying to the headquarters of my Department for permission to insert the advertisement which had also been submitted to that journal, the view was taken that its insertion would constitute a breach of para. 2 (1) (a) of the Order to which I have referred. I regret very much the inconvenience which has been caused in this matter.

Sir J. Mellor: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his apology, may I ask is it not the case that these Orders are so complicated, that even the officials of the Ministry of Labour cannot understand them?

Mr. Bevin: Many things passed by this House get complicated and have to be settled in the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (ARMED FORCES, RELEASE)

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to make any arrangements to expedite the return to their police duties as soon as possible after the termination of hostilities in Europe of the regular police now serving with the armed forces.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. The regular police are in a special position in that their return from the Armed Forces to their police forces will be in the nature of a transfer from one uniformed disciplined service to another. Accordingly, arrangements are under consideration whereby regular policemen will be dealt with individually and those who can be spared from their military duties will, it is hoped, be returned to police service at an early date after the cessation of hostilities in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (POSTPONED RELEASE)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider granting a special bonus or extra overtime pay to Service men whose release under the demobilisation scheme is postponed on account of military necessity, such payment to date from the day on which they would otherwise have been released.

Mr. Bevin: The suggestion in the question is based on the assumption that a man has a promise of release in Class A. on a certain date. This is not the case. The promise is that, subject to military


requirements, men will be released in a certain order. Adoption of the proposal would put the Government in the position of paying a penalty in cash each time it was found necessary to depart from that order.
Any such arrangement, even if agreed as providing an additional benefit for men retained for military reasons, would present the greatest administrative difficulties. One outstanding objection to the proposal, apart from objection in principle, would be that the date from which the additional pay proposed would accrue would necessarily be different in the different Services and in different branches of the same Service for men in the same age and service groups.

Mr. Driberg: Even if there is not an absolute promise of release, did not the Minister's speech and the Parliamentary Secretary's speech in the recent Debate imply that only comparatively few men would have to be retained after their turn had arrived, and so could not my right hon. Friend try to devise some simple means of granting this consolation prize?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, I cannot go further than we have gone in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. T. J. Brooks: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give further consideration to the question of giving, if not a pension then a gratuity, without means test, to a parent or parents who may lose a son or daughter by death whilst on military service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): The Government do not accept the view that parents in general wish to be given a small grant automatically as compensation for the loss of a child, but believe the majority prefer to know that reasonable provision will be made for them should they at any time be in need. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to recommend the adoption of my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware when a boy is killed in industry, if it is proved that he has made any payments or allotment to his parents, compensation is paid; and is he also aware that there is no means test for wives?

Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir, but even under compensation, some dependency has to be proved before anything is paid; and as to wives, the position is rather different from that of parents.

Mr. McEntee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in cases where a mother loses a son in that way, and she is compelled, because of the delay of my right hon. Friend's own Department, to go to work, the fact that she goes to work is then used against her?

Mr. Paling: I have no information of that sort, and if my hon. Friend will give me a case I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. McEntee: I will do that.

Mr. Graham White: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in considering this matter, that, while there are many hard cases, there are also a large number of parents who would regret very much if an automatic value were placed upon their sons?

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be better that the Government should make some recognition in these cases and not simply forget those fathers and mothers who have lost their children?

Mr. Paling: They are not forgotten.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will now allay the discontent among many families of Servicemen by ensuring that the recent increase in family or dependants' allowances does not in any case lead to a decrease of the family income, through the war service grants being reduced by a greater amount than the increase in these allowances.

Mr. Paling: I have no reason to think that difficulties are arising on the grounds suggested by my hon. Friend. It is only exceptionally that the reduction in a war service grant exceeds the increase in the regulated allowance. Where this happens it is due to the fact that since the grant was last reviewed there have been other increases in the family income, in regard to which no adjustment had been made in the intervening period.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread, bitter and justifiable discontent among Servicemen owing to these cases in which what is given with one hand is more than taken away, unhappily, with the other?

Mr. Paling: I am not aware of that. Our experience is not to that effect. The number of letters we have about this matter is very small indeed and in most cases, after an explanation has been given, we hear nothing more about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Government and Provincial Services (Europeans)

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for India if he will issue a statement showing how many European officers still remain in the various services under the Government of India and in the provincial services.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the superior services employed under the Government of

Statement regarding the Superior Civil Services as on 1st January, 1943.


Services
Europeans
Indians


ALL INDIA SERVICES





Indian Civil Service (including incumbents of listed posts)
…
560
629


Indian Police
…
373
203


Indian Medical Service (Civil) (Exclusive of Burma)
…
64
20


Indian Agricultural Service
…
13
16


Indian Educational Service (Men's Branch)
…
11
30


Indian Educational Service (Women's Branch)
…
4
—


Indian Forest Service
…
86
78


Indian Forest Engineering Service
…
2
—


Indian Service of Engineers
…
108
172


Indian Veterinary Service
…
7
1


CENTRAL SERVICES, CLASS I





Indian Audit and Accounts Service
…
4
142


Central Engineering Service (Class I)
…
—
30


Imperial Customs Service
…
5
21


Telegraph Engineering Service, Class I
…
12
43


Indian Posts and Telegraphs Traffic Service (Class I)
…
5
21


Geological Survey of India (Class I)
…
8
10


Indian Meteorological Service (Class I)
…
1
17


Mines Department (Class I)
…
3
7


Archaeological Department
…
1
15


Zoological Survey of India
…
—
6


Survey of India (Class I)
…
26
9


Income-tax Service (Class I)
…
3
27


Indian Railway Service of Engineers
…
108
199


Indian Railway Accounts Service
…
14
41


Superior Revenue Establishment (Railways)
…
334
378


Mint Department
…
3
1


Botanical Survey of India
…
—
1


Military Accounts Department
…
11
48


Indian School of Mines
…
2
3


Central Excises and Salt Departments (Class I posts)
…
1
3


Railway Inspectorate Service, Class I
…
2
4

Medical Research

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for India what steps he is taking to promote medical research in India; and if he will consider asking the Medical Research Council to investigate the effects

India and the various Provincial Governments. According to the latest figures available the number of European officers so employed on 1st January, 1943, was 1,771. I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT information as to the services to which these officers belong.

Captain Gammans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is commonly believed in America and in the Dominions that the number of European officers still remaining in India runs into hundreds of thousands? Would he therefore, be good enough to give such publicity as he thinks desirable to these figures and, above all, to show how the number has decreased, in the last 10, 15 and 20 years?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly keep that point in mind.

Following is the Statement:

of the famine in Bengal in respect of malnutrition and deficiency diseases.

Mr. Amery: The Director General of the Indian Medical Service has just completed a visit to this country and the United States of America in which he explored various


means of promoting medical research in India and liaison between Indian research workers and those elsewhere. The Government of India are looking forward to receiving recommendations on these subjects from the Health Survey and Development Committee under Sir Joseph Bhore (of which the Director General is a member) and have already before them some valuable proposals made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Professor A. V. Hill). The Famine Inquiry Commission under Sir John Woodhead has within its scope the subject of the second part of the hon. Member's Question. Dr. Aykroyd, the Director of the Nutritional Research Laboratory at Coonoor, is a member of the Commission.

Mr. Gallacher: When a report is submitted, will it be placed in the Library?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, I expect that it will be available.

Health Survey and Development Committee

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for India what is the membership and function of the Indian Health Survey and Development Committee whose chairman is Sir Joseph Bhore; and how soon this committee is expected to report.

Mr. Amery: The Committee consists of 24 members whose names, with the permission of the House, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They are drawn from all parts of India and include persons with practical experience of all aspects of the health problem. The Committee's duty is to make a broad survey of the present position in regard to health conditions and health organisation in British India and to make recommendations for future development. It is holding its final meetings this month and I hope will report shortly.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask if on the committee there are any representatives of the democratic organisations or trade unions?

Mr. Amery: I think it is purely a medical and research body but, as I have said, I will circulate the list of members, from which it can be seen how wide a field they cover.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman knows

that the widespread malnutrition and bad housing in India are responsible for the high sickness rate, what is the purpose in setting up this committee? Why are we tolerating this delay?

Mr. Amery: I should have thought the situation in India fully satisfied the setting up of that body.

Dr. Summerskill: But the right hon. Gentleman knows there is widespread malnutrition and that the expectation of life in India is 27 years; surely this inquiry is a farce.

Following are the Members of the Committee:

Chairman.—Sir Joseph Bhore, K.C.S.I., K.C.I.E., C.B.E.

Members.

1. Rai Bahadur Dr. A. C. Banerjea, C.I.E., M.B.B.S. (All.), Dr. P. H., Director of Public Health, United Provinces.
2. K. B. Dr. Abdul Hamid Butt, M.B.B.S. (Pb.), D.P.H. (Lond.), D.T.M. &amp; H (Eng.), Director of Public Health, Punjab.
3. Dr. R. B. Chandrachud, M.B.B.S., F.R.C.S., Chief Medical Officer, Baroda State.
4. Lt.-Col. E. Cotter, C.I.E., M.B., Ch.B., D.P.H., Public Health Commissioner with the Government of India.
5. Dr. D. Y. B. Dadhaboy, M.D., M.R.C.P. (Lond.), ex-President of the All-India Association of Medical Women, Bombay.
6. Dr. J. B. Grant, B.A., M.D., M.P.H., International Health Division of the Rockefeller Foundation, Director, All-India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Calcutta.
7. Dr. Mohammad Abdul Hamid, M.D., M.R.C.P., Member of the Medical Council of India, Professor of Pathology, Lucknow University.
8. Col. J. B. Hance, C.I.E., O.B.E., M.D., B.Ch. (Camb.), M.R.C.S., F.R.C.S. (Edin.), Director General, Indian Medical Service.
9. Sir Henry Holland, C.I.E., M.B., Ch.B., F.R.C.S. (E), C.M.S. Hospital, Quetta.
10. Sir Frederick James, O.B.E., M.L.A., Member, Central Advisory Board of Health.
11. N. M. Joshi, Esquire, M.L.A.
12. Dr. H. M. Lazarus, F.R.C.S. (Edin.), C.M.O., Women's Medical Service.
13. Pandit L. K. Maitra, M.L.A., Member, Central Advisory Board of Health.
14. Diwan Bahadur Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, BA., M.D., F.C.O.G., Vice-Chancellor, University of Madras, Member of the Medical Council of India.
15. Dr. U. B. Narayanrao, L.C.P.S. (Bomb.), Medical Practitioner, Bombay, President, All-India Medical Licentiates Association.


16. Dr. B. Vishwa Nath, M.A., M.D., D.P.H., D.T.M. &amp; H., F.R.C.P., Member of the Medical Council of India, Medical Practitioner, Lahore.
17. Maj.-Gen. W. C. Paton, M.C., M.A., M.B., Ch.B. (Edin.), F.R.C.S. (Edin.), Surgeon-General, Bengal.
18. B. Shiva Rao, Esquire.
19. Dr. B. C. Roy, M.R.C.P., F.R.C.S., President of the Medical Council of India.
20. The Hon. Pandit P. N. Sapru, Member, Council of State, Member, Central Advisory Board of Health.
21. Lt.-Col. B. Z. Shah, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., I.M.S. (Retd.), Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Poona, formerly Director of Medical Services, Sind.
22. Mrs. Shuffi Tyabji, J.P., K.I.H., Bombay.
23. Dr. Hemandas R. Wadhwani, M.B.B.S., K.I.H., J.P., Minister, Sind.

Secretary.—Rao Bahadur Dr. K. C. K. E. Raja, I.M.S. (Mad.), L.R.C.P. & S., L.R.F.P.S. (Edin. and Glas.), D.P.H. (Camb.), and D.T.M. & H. (Camb.).

Forces Welfare (Munster Report)

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for India if he is in a position to make an interim statement on Lord Munster's visit to India and the S.E.A.C.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he intends to make public the result of the investigation undertaken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department into the welfare of the Forces in the Indian Command and S.E.A.C.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in order that the House may know the requirements of the officers and other ranks serving in India and the S.E.A.C. with a view to action, he will publish as a White Paper Lord Munster's Report.

Mr. Amery: My Noble Friend returned to this country at the beginning of the week and has presented his report, which is under consideration. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement next week.

Mr. Leslie: May I ask if we are likely to have a Debate on that report?

Mr. Amery: It is not for me to decide that matter.

Dysentery

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for India how many soldiers in the British Army stationed in India are suffering from dysentery; if he is aware that

when suffering from dysentery they have to pay for their own food; and what action he intends taking about this.

Mr. Amery: The rate of admissions to hospital in India for dysentery and kindred illnesses was less than 7½ per cent. in 1943–44, as compared with the pre-war annual rate of 5½ per cent. I am unaware of any ground for the suggestion in the second part of the hon. Member's Question, but if he will give me the details on which it is based I will make inquiry from the Government of India.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the alarming increase in the incidence of dysentery amongst our troops just disclosed by the Secretary of State, is this one of the matters on which Lord Munster has reported? Shall we have some further information on that next week from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Amery: I think my hon. Friend must await Lord Munster's report, or whatever we may publish of it on the subject. I would only say this, that if the House keeps in mind the difference between peace conditions in India and serving on the Burma frontier, it will not view the increase as so very alarming.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us to what the figure is related? Is it 7½ per cent. of those admitted to hospital, or 7½ per cent. of the troops serving? If it is the latter, is it not a most alarming figure?

Mr. Amery: The figures are 7½ per cent. admissions for the troops serving.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED EX-SERVICEMEN (WHEEL-CHAIRS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that whilst his Department has supplied wheel-chairs for ex-Service men with both legs amputated above the knees they find it difficult to use them, especially in hilly areas; and will he provide electrical apparatus for those chairs to assist them to move about.

Mr. Paling: I have no evidence that the wheel chairs which are supplied in these cases are difficult to use in normal circum-


stances. Applications by men living in hilly districts for the provision of a motor unit are considered by the Medical Officers of the Ministry and in suitable cases a recommendation for supply is made under the arrangements to which my right hon. Friend referred in his reply to the hon. Member for Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Hewlett) on 26th October last.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Personnel (Gratuity)

Mr. Manning: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a gratuity will be paid to full-time members of the Civil Defence Services.

The Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This matter is receiving consideration and I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date.

Mr. Manning: Will the Home Secretary remember, when considering this matter, that the Civil Defence Services have been the Cinderella Services?

Mr. Morrison: Well, Sir, I have done my very best to see that that is not so.

Regional Commissioners (Staffs)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has now been made in disbanding the organisation and offices of Regional Commissioners.

Mr. H. Morrison: Not counting 95 staff now under notice of termination of appointment, the staff of Regional Commissioners' offices, including operational staff, is 1,964. This is a reduction of 40 per cent. since July, 1942, when the staff of Regional offices was at its righest and a reduction of 26 per cent. since September, 1944. Further substantial reductions of staff will not be possible whilst the present dangers from air attacks continue.

Captain Duncan: What are the reductions in the staff of London region?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say without notice. There have been some reductions.

Personnel (U.N.R.R.A.)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many C.D. workers have been accepted for overseas service with U.N.R.R.A.; whether recruiting from the C.D. service is being proceeded with; and has it been made clear to the staffs of employment exchanges that certain categories of C.D. workers are needed for service with U.N.R.R.A.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that U.N.R.R.A. does not recruit for Civil Defence overseas and no request has been made by the Administration for a general appeal for recruits from Civil Defence. Categories of workers required have, however, been notified to the Ministry of Labour and National Service, who are thus able to give guidance to members of the Civil Defence Services who may be interested. In addition, at the suggestion of U.N.R.R.A. particulars of certain administrative and welfare appointments in the organisation overseas have been brought to the notice of some of the larger local authorities who, it was thought, might be able to recommend suitable candidates, either from among those in their employment in connexion with Civil Defence, or from members of the Civil Defence Services. Of the candidates thus secured, five have been selected by U.N.R.R.A. for appointment and 54 will shortly be interviewed. The names of a small number of selected volunteers for certain other duties are also being obtained from the Civil Defence Reserve, and, through the Regional Office, from local authorities in London.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that members of the Civil Defence force who have volunteered for this service have been told by officers at the employment exchanges that they have no knowledge of U.N.R.R.A.?

Mr. Hall: I am rather surprised at that because it is the Ministry of Labour and National Service who recruit them. Applications for employment must be through that Ministry.

Mr. John Dugdale: Do the qualifications necessary include a university degree?

Mr. Hall: No. I think those most suitable for the work are selected.

Mr. Kirby: May I have an answer to my question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that members of the Civil Defence force have applied for these jobs and have been told by the clerks at the employment exchange that they know nothing about it?

Mr. Hall: If the hon. Member will communicate with the Ministry of Labour and National Service, who are responsible for the recruitment of these persons, he may get satisfaction.

Indoor Table Shelters (Post-war Disposal)

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the position of those citizens who have voluntarily or otherwise acquired Morrison table shelters from the Government; is it the intention of the Government to repurchase or advise citizens as to the method of disposal of such shelters; and what would be the number and cost to the taxpayers if all were repurchased by the Government.

Mr. H. Morrison: Indoor table shelters have been issued free on request to householders whose incomes are below a prescribed limit, and these shelters which comprise over 90 per cent. of the total issues remain the property of the Crown. The question of their repurchase, therefore, does not arise. It is intended eventually to collect them for disposal by the Government, but it will probably be a considerable time after the end of hostilities before labour and transport can be spared for the purpose. Until the shelters have been collected, householders are under a statutory obligation to take reasonable care for their preservation. About 90,000 shelters have been sold to householders. The question of repurchasing such of these shelters as may be offered by householders is receiving consideration, but should it be decided to adopt such a course, the price of repurchase would doubtless be fixed so as to ensure that having regard to the proceeds of final disposal and the cost of handling, no charge fell on public funds.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is it to be understood that the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's reply is that in the case of not being able to sell these things, and get something back for them, they can be kept as air-raid-looms?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR WORKERS ABROAD (PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the approximate number of persons engaged in war work abroad who have been registered as parliamentary electors under the provisions of Section 11 of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943; and what percentage of the total number eligible for this registration this number represents.

Mr. H. Morrison: The counterparts of 509 war worker declarations have been received at the Central National Registration Office. These counterparts are only sent to the Central National Registration Office by electoral registration officers when they have completed the work of filing the names and checking the proxies appointed and it is not possible to give the number of declarations received by electoral registration officers in respect of which action is not yet complete. As regards the second part of the Question, as "war workers abroad" consist of many varying classes of persons scattered in different places abroad, I regret that the information desired is not available.

Mr. Lawson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask can he give some very rough indication of what percentage the number so far registered represents of the total eligible for registration? Is it 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., or what?

Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry but I am afraid I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON INFORMERS

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there has been a recent recurrence in the activities of the common informer; that these persons, as a rule, take action on payment by third parties and frequently make money by threats of blackmail; and when he proposes to amend the law to prevent their activities.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not aware of anything that can be described as a recent recurrence in the activities of the common informer. I have already expressed my views about the activities of the common informer which I agree sometimes come


very near to blackmail. I should be very glad to get rid of all the antiquated provisions of the law enabling a common informer to sue for penalties, but I am afraid that any general overhaul of the law for this purpose is out of the question at the present time.

Sir W. Davison: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is very undesirable that facilities for blackmail should be given by the law as it exists at present? What is the reason for the delay in dealing with this matter which, some little time ago, he informed the House he had under consideration?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. With regard to the second part, I did not hold out hope of legislation, and I gathered that during the present week the House had been discussing the congested state of the Parliamentary programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Prime Minister who will answer questions in connection with civil aviation matters.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would like to talk this over with Lord Swinton when he comes home. Pending that event, questions on Civil Aviation will be answered by the Secretary of State for Air.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SERVICE GRANTS

Major Peto: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing resentment among Servicemen and their families over the operation of the system of war grants under which any increase of pay for overseas service or efficiency is usually substantially or entirely nullified by an equivalent reduction in the war grant received 'by the wife and children; and whether he will, as the Minister of Pensions can only administer the law as it is, investigate the whole matter with a view to remedial legislation.

Mr. Attlee: Increases in pay do not lead to equal or substantially equal reductions

in war service grants, but are taken into account only to the extent explained in a statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presented to the House on 11th July last and in the recent White Paper Cmd. 6553. Within these limits the practice seems to me reasonable, and it is not considered that any amendment is necessary. In those cases which my hon. and gallant Friend probably has in mind I understand that other improvements have taken place in the family circumstances since the grant was last assessed, and the new calculation must take these also into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM WAR EFFORT WHITE PAPER (TRANSLATIONS)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for Cmd. 6564, relating to the war effort of the United Kingdom, to be published in Russian, French and Spanish.

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend can rely on the fact that we will make arrangements for the translation and publication of this Paper in every foreign country in which this is feasible.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will Wales be included among the countries?

Mr. Attlee: Wales is not a foreign country.

Mr. McGovern: Will it not be a sheer waste of paper, as there is little chance of its being distributed in those countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY (DELAYS)

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the long delays between the date of a first submission and the date of a final award in respect of a decoration for gallantry on active service; and if he will take steps to remedy this.

Mr. Attlee: Everything is done to avoid delay in matters of this kind. On occasion it is inevitable for various reasons that some time should elapse before a final award is made. If my hon. Friend will furnish details in any particular instance which he has in mind I shall be glad to have investigation made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING INDUSTRY (RESEARCH)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Lord President of the Council how much was appropriated by the Government in 1938–39 for research work in connection with the building industry; and whether he intends increasing the amount appropriated for research in the post-war years.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): During the financial year 1938–39 the gross expenditure by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on building research was £9,928. Since then there has been a considerable increase in the amount spent on building research, the estimate for the current year being £110,100. There is likely to be further substantial increase in the future as soon as staff and facilities can be provided.

Mr. Bossom: Could the right hon. Gentleman provide a list showing the amount provided by the Government and the amount provided by industry?

Mr. Attlee: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Women's Land Army (Hospital Facilities)

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture why members of the W.L.A. are not accorded the same facilities as members of the Women's Auxiliary Services of His Majesty's Forces when they require hospital treatment.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The reason why there is not uniformity of treatment between members of the Women's Land Army and members of the various Auxiliary Services was explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19th January, 1944, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), of which I am sending my hon. and learned Friend a copy. Members of the Women's Land Army rank equally with other transferred civilian war workers for treatment under the Government's Emergency Medical Service scheme in all hospitals covered by that scheme.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these women, recruited, organised and

partly uniformed by the State, have to pay to the fullest extent of their means for hospital treatment when they are sick? Is that the proper way to treat them?

Poultry Industry

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to encourage the poultry industry after the war.

Mr. Hudson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in this House on Tuesday, which includes a special reference to the poultry industry.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if the poultry industry is given a fair chance it will be a very important factor in food production in this country?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is that statement intended to be related to the egg collecting scheme, so that poultry will reach the proper channels and, eventually, the retailers?

Mr. Hudson: I do not think that that arises on this Question.

Mr. Walkden: It is in the scheme.

Milk Supply, London (Goats)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he will consider establishing within 10 miles of London 10,000 goats, in view of the fact that they could supplement the milk supply and relieve the milk shortage;
(2) how many goats are being kept within 10 miles radius of London; and if he will consider putting goats upon the gardens, parks and open spaces which are now being used.

Mr. Hudson: I have no information as to the number of goats kept within 10 miles radius of London. As to the remaining parts of the Question, I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions are impracticable.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the goat has been the poor man's cow for generations, that its milk is non-tubercular and that it gives two gallons per day? Why should we not march upon milk, to victory through vitamins?

Prisoner of War Labour

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider withdrawing Italian labour from Suffolk and Norfolk farms, in view of the general and growing complaints as to slackness and waste of time, and substituting other more efficient labour instead.

Mr. Hudson: Justifiable complaints about the work of Italian prisoners relate only to a small proportion of them. The employment of German prisoners is being extended where conditions permit, but no other source of additional labour is available, and in present circumstances a general substitution of Germans for Italians is both impracticable and undesirable.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing indignation in Suffolk and Norfolk about the present state of affairs, and that in one case where 34 of these men worked on a quarter of an acre the value of that work was only 9s. for a whole morning?

Mr. Hudson: I am quite sure there would be much greater indignation and protest if I were to withdraw Italian prisoners.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the Minister accept the suggestion that Germans, who are our enemies, are better workmen than Italians, who are our Allies?

Major Keatinge: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing resentment against these prisoners who have been doing nothing whatever to help with the harvest?

Land Utilisation

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent he has been discussing the proposals for legislation with the Ministry of War Transport and the Association of Highway Authorities; what is the estimated acreage of agricultural land involved; and if consideration is being given to the disorganisation that would follow from the cutting across of agricultural holdings.

Mr. Hudson: Proposals for the construction of new roads are discussed between the Ministry of War Transport and my Department. Severance of farms is one of the important matters taken into account. My Noble Friend, the Minister of War Transport, would certainly con-

sult me about new legislative proposals likely to affect agricultural land. No estimate can be given at the present stage as to the acreage of agricultural land that may be involved.

Wing-Commander James: Has my right hon. Friend been consulted about the proposed motor-ways?

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the large aggregate area of agricultural land damaged or impeded by War Department and Air Ministry works, many of them small and no longer in use, he will consider what steps can be taken to secure restoration and terminate the waste involved.

Mr. Hudson: Arrangements have been made between my Department and the War Office for the removal, where practicable, of obsolete or unwanted defence works and for the restoration of the land to agricultural use where it is considered to be desirable in the interests of food production. These arrangements, which have also been adopted in principle by the Air Ministry, are, of course, subject to the necessary labour being available.

Wing-Commander James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a great many searchlight sites no longer in use, and would he ask agricultural committees to advise him as to whether obstructions could be removed?

Mr. Hudson: I have already said that the matter is determined by the availability of labour.

County War Executive Committees (Finance)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the cost to the State of the operations of the war agricultural executive committees; and whether he will give detailed figures by counties.

Mr. Hudson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Vote of Credit Appropriation Account, 1939 (H.C.72 of 1941) to the Civil Appropriation Accounts (Unclassified Votes) for 1940 and 1941 and those for Class X, War Services, for 1942. I cannot undertake to give figures for individual counties, as in the absence of full information as to the conditions


obtaining in the different counties, comparisons between one county and another would be very misleading.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the case of farms taken over by the war agricultural executive committees, separate balance sheets showing profit and loss are prepared for official inspection; and whether he can give individual figures for each county.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Ammonium Nitrate

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that 183,000 tons of ammonium nitrate have been exported by Canada, as surplus to her requirements to South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and the U.S.A., but none to Great Britain; and will he arrange that trials of this fertiliser are made during next season.

Mr. Hudson: I am aware that substantial quantities of ammonium nitrate have been exported from Canada, but imports into the United Kingdom are not necessary since the home production of suitable nitrogenous fertilisers is more than sufficient to meet the increased wartime demand.

Rabbits (Steel Traps)

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a decision has now been reached to cancel the Order made under Defence Regulation 63, which permits the use of steel traps in the open contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Mr. Duckworth: Is there any justification for continuing this barbarous practice, in defence of a decision come to by the House before the war?

Mr. Price: In maintaining the use of these traps, where necessary, will the Minister see that they are not used in such a way as to catch domestic animals?

Mr. Hudson: I have already stated, in answer to previous questions, that the whole matter is under reconsideration at the present moment.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say when he will be able to make further definite statements?

Mr. Hudson: In due course.

Grassland Improvement Station, Stratford-on-Avon

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many times from 1st June, 1942, inclusive, his Ministry has been requested by letter from the Warwickshire County Council to publish financial results of the Grassland Improvement Station, near Stratford-on-Avon; why the council was not informed until 6th November, 1944, that the original intention to publish had been abandoned; and whether he will publish forthwith.

Mr. Hudson: The reply to the first part of the Question is "five," and, to the last, "No, Sir." The reply to the second part is that it was not until about that time that the decision was taken not to issue in war-time a comprehensive review of the station's operations, including an examination of the economic aspects of some of the work.

Sir J. Mellor: While recognising the valuable work of this station, would not this result be of greater practical importance to farmers, if cost accounts were available?

Mr. Hudson: That is one of the considerations that were borne in mind in arriving at the decision that I have come to.

Vehicles (Disinfection)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the disinfection of a vehicle after it has carried imported meat prior to its carrying livestock or feeding-stuffs is obligatory; if so, under what authority these powers to enforce disinfection are exercised; and whether due publicity has been given to these obligations.

Mr. Hudson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir", and I am sorry if any statement made during the Debate on the Adjournment on 17th November, gave a misleading impression. The relative Order made under the Diseases of Animals Acts requires vehicles carrying livestock to be disinfected after each load of animals has


been discharged. I understand that Ministry of Health Regulations require all vehicles used for the conveyance of meat to be kept in a clean and hygienic condition.

Mr. Turton: Now that the mistake has been admitted, will my right hon. Friend consider the argument that I used at the time, that it is even more important to disinfect a vehicle carrying imported meat than livestock, and will he bring in regulations to deal with it at once?

Mr. Hudson: The matter is not one within my sole jurisdiction. The question is under examination but I cannot give any sort of promise of what action will eventually be taken.

Mr. Turton: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — L.C.C. REMAND HOME (INQUIRY)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the enquiry into remand homes is not being held in public; and if he will arrange that it shall be and that evidence be taken on oath.

Mr. H. Morrison: On the first point, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 28th November. In order to enable the evidence to be taken on oath, it would have been necessary to have recourse to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, but procedure under this Act is quite exceptional and in the present case it was deemed sufficient to adopt the usual procedure which is recognised to produce excellent results.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the setting up of these secret inquiries is further evidence of the way that he is leading the country down the totalitarian road?

Colonel Greenwell: Are shorthand notes being taken of the proceedings of the inquiry?

Mr. Morrison: I think there is a Question on the Paper on that point.

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

he is now prepared to undertake that the evidence given before the Committee of Inquiry into Remand Homes will be published as a supplement to the Report.

Mr. H. Morrison: Even before the warthe general practice was against the publication in full of evidence given before committees, since it is the duty of a committee to include in its report a fair and adequate review of the evidence given and of the reasons for its conclusions and recommendations. In war time the arguments against publication are even more cogent. The report of the inquiry, which will be searching and comprehensive, will be published in full, and there is no sufficient reason for departing from the usual practice on the present occasion.

Mr. Molson: In view of the widespread impression that the Home Secretary is anxious to hush this matter up, will he make the evidence available in the Library?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that point, but, if I may say so, there is far too much tendency to bring party politics into this matter. There is none in my mind, and I hope that hon. Members will be restrained about that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Silkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one would be more pleased than the London County Council that the evidence should be published in full?

Mr. Morrison: I will take note of that observation.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: For the sake of the children, will my right hon. Friend see that no daily reports are published until the official report is ready?

Mr. Morrison: That is what I have done, and what I am criticised for. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES (HOME OFFICE CIRCULARS)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what Act of Parliament, or by what authority, he sent circulars to justices of the peace designed to influence them in the administration of justice; and will he place copies of such circulars in the Library.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the purpose of the circular issued to magistrates in connection with the conviction of workers for infringements of laws arising from their employment.

Mr. H. Morrison: The practice of the issue by the Home Office of circular letters giving information or advice to justices on matters relating to the administration of justice and the treatment of offenders is almost as old as is the Home Office itself, and derives not from any statute but from the constitutional position of the Home Secretary as the Minister concerned with such matters. Such circulars are often issued as the result of requests for advice from the courts and I have every reason to believe they are generally welcomed by magistrates and their clerks. They invariably avoid giving any advice which could possibly be construed as interfering in any way with the exercise by the justices of their judicial functions in individual cases. There are a great many of them and I cannot very well undertake to place them in the Library as a matter of course, although I shall be glad to consider doing so in a particular case where this appears to be the wish of Members. If my hon. Friends have in mind the circular issued in April about control of employment offences such as absenteeism and persistent lateness, the gist of that circular was to suggest that, in the case of such offences, where the defendant is not usually of criminal character, imprisonment should, where possible, be avoided, and that increased use might with advantage be made of the procedure of adjourning to give the defendant an opportunity of thinking the matter over and complying with the law. This procedure had been very successfully adopted by a number of courts, and compliance with the law had been secured without recourse to imprisonment in any but exceptional cases.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman place copies in the Library of the last three or four circulars that he has sent out and, as he prides himself on being a progressive man, will he stop this vicious practice?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider placing copies in the Library. I am glad the

hon. Gentleman recognises that I am a progressive man. I will not comment on what he is.

Mr. Goldie: Can the House have copies of this valuable and interesting document? I am a Justice of the Peace and I have never received one.

Mr. Morrison: If we sent one to all Justices of the Peace it would be a very large number. They are sent to the clerks and they are, of course, available to justices.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Members who are very much obliged to him for giving us a revelation of the new apostle of freedom behind him?

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOMES (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the number of remand homes provided in England and Wales during the war compares with the number provided in the previous five years; and whether he is satisfied with the progress which has been made by local authorities in the provision of remand home accommodation as required by the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.

Mr. H. Morrison: In 1934 there were 29 remand homes provided by local authorities. In 1939 there were 36. Now there are 73. Eleven more are in process of preparation and several other schemes are on foot. It will be seen that, while progress before 1939 was very slow, the number has been doubled during the war. I think that the House will agree that the result is not unsatisfactory in view of the difficulties of war conditions, but I hope that those local authorities who have not yet made adequate provision to meet the needs of the courts will do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend explain the reasons for the very slow progress that was made in the provision of these homes before the war in the years that he has cited, and will he take steps to see that the progress that has been made during his administration is continued?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly do my very best in that respect. The first part


of my hon. Friend's question would have to be addressed to the Minister who was in office at the time.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the increase in the number of homes signify an increase in juvenile delinquency or a change of policy?

Mr. Morrison: Not entirely. Changes in the law make some difference but, of course, war conditions have led to special difficulties.

Mr. Benson: Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of the very new and very gratifying interest in remand homes shown by certain Members behind him, to raise the whole standard of remand homes throughout the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the near future and with better shipping facilities now becoming available, he will relax certain restrictions on travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are proving burdensome, oppressive and most disappointing to many.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am anxious to relax the restrictions as soon as possible but I am sorry that the time has not yet come for any major alteration of policy.

Dr. Little: Does my right hon. Friend recognise how vexatious and uncalled-for are some of these restrictions on travel to Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be making a statement rather than asking a question.

Dr. Little: I am asking a question, Sir, and I am asking for an answer.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend realise that terrible hardship is being caused to large numbers of perfectly responsible Ulster people resident in this country, who have not been allowed to visit their families—apart from fathers and mothers or children—for four years?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I am exceedingly anxious to do my best, but, as those who travel on the route know, there are great difficulties about travel, checking up at the

offices, and so on. There are great problems of congestion of the machine, but as soon as I can do so, I will relax the restrictions further.

Mr. Buchanan: Cannot the Minister, in the meantime, ask the officials to see that at least there is a less strict rule about the amount of travel allowed, because there is great hardship?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that in the circumstances we are too strict. We are trying to be as considerate and as kind as we can. If, as time goes on, we can make further relaxations, nobody will be more pleased than I will be.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that applications by working-class folk are treated as generously as the others?

Mr. Morrison: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman dreaming that the Home Office would do anything else.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that in the city of Glasgow, where there is an Irish passport office, the way the working-class people who apply there have to wait and are treated is not too creditable, and that there is a marked difference sometimes between that, and the way the well-to-do are treated?

Mr. Morrison: That is an allegation, and if my hon. Friend produces evidence to me, I will look into it. This waiting business is part of the problem.

Dr. Little: Does my right hon. Friend think it judicious and wise to refuse a permit to a speaker to attend a conference in Belfast when his visit could do nothing but good to all concerned?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN'S HOMES (COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. KEELING:
84. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now announce the Government's decision on the question of setting up an inquiry into the methods of providing for children deprived of a normal home life.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. H. Morrison: As this is a matter of some importance, I will with permission make a statement in relation to this Question.
His Majesty's Government have had this matter under consideration and, so far as England and Wales are concerned, a Committee of Inquiry will be appointed as soon as possible jointly by the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and myself. The terms of reference will be:
To inquire into existing methods of providing for children who from loss of parents, or from any other cause whatever, are deprived of a normal home life with their own parents or relatives; and to consider what further measures should be taken to ensure that these children are brought up under conditions best calculated to compensate them for the lack Of parental care.
The Government have also under consideration the question of the central administrative responsibility for such children which is at present shared between several Government Departments, and they hope to be in a position to make their views on this question known to the Committee as soon as possible after it is appointed.
As regards Scotland, a similar Committee of Inquiry will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
It is the normal practice of committees of this character to take evidence in private. In the case of this committee, however, there are arguments for and against the proceedings being held in private and it is proposed that the committee should be given a discretion to hear evidence in public where they are satisfied that that can be done without the risk of failure to elicit the truth or detriment to the public interest.

Mr. Keeling: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to thank him and his colleagues for this prompt response to a wish expressed by nearly 200 Members of this House?

Mr. Morrison: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that there are a great many of these homes which are splendidly run by consecrated men and women so that the country will not think that all of them are as bad as some people make out?

Mr. Morrison: There is no assumption in my mind that these homes are necessarily badly run. I have no doubt that many of them are well run, but the Government think, and I believe the

House will agree, that there is a good case for a comprehensive inquiry.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the terms of reference are sufficiently wide to cover blind and physically and mentally defective children?

Mr. Morrison: If they are resident in homes, that will certainly be the case.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will the terms of reference include education and after care?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure about that. I am afraid I shall want notice of that point, but I will consider it.

Miss Rathbone: Will the inquiry include not only the quality of the homes which exist, but the adequacy of the provision of homes?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who will sit on the Committees and how long the inquiry is likely to take?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that that question is premature.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the terms of reference include the question of corporal punishment in these homes?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure, but I should rather doubt it.

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: Is it intended that the inquiry shall include children placed with foster parents or be confined to those in institutional care?

Mr. Morrison: The question of children placed with foster parents and the policy of foster parents instead of institutional treatment, will be within the scope of the inquiry.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the children whose cases are to receive consideration, are drawn from the ranks of the working class, will the Minister see to it that the chairman of the Committee is from a working-class family?

Mr. Morrison: We will do our best to get the best chairman. Perhaps I ought to add, in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), that I think the point that he has raised, if the Committee wish to go


into it, will be within the Committee's terms of reference.

Mr. Gallacher: May I press on the Minister the point which I have just put to him, because we do not want another lawyer as chairman of the Committee?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the terms of reference include existing remand homes in many parts of the country which have not received the limelight which the London County Council remand homes have received?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, all the homes will have a fair chance of having the limelight put upon them.

Mr. Buchanan: I understand that a separate Committee is to be set up for Scotland; will the terms of reference be the same for that Committee as for the English Committee?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can, of course, answer that question, but I understand that it is the intention to follow broadly on similar lines.

Mr. Gallacher: Could I not have an assurance from the Minister that the Committee will not have a lawyer as its chairman but a representative of the working class?

Mr. Morrison: At the moment, I cannot give any assurances whatever to the hon. Member.

Mr. McGovern: Are we to take it that the Communist Party have a suspicion of lawyers, and do not allow them in their party?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business for next week?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. On Tuesday, 12th December, the Business will be the conclusion of the Debate on the Address, when, as I have already announced to the House, Debates will take place on Burma and rural housing. There will be a Motion to approve the continuance in force of the Proclamation relating to Orissa.
Wednesday, 13th December: Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates, including a Grant-in-Aid for Jamaica, details of which are forthcoming in the Vote Office; Second Reading of the Local Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
Thursday, 14th December: A Debate will take place on recruitment to established posts in the Civil Service, arising out of the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
[That this House approves the proposals contained in Command Paper No. 6567 for recruitment to established posts in the Civil Service during the reconstruction period.]
Friday, 15th December: Report of Supplementary Estimates; Committee and remaining stages of the Local Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Afterwards there will be an opportunity for a Debate on Poland, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not necessary to introduce legislation to regularise the position of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are serving overseas under certificates from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, not at present. Not before early next year.

Mr. Molson: Does my right hon. Friend intend to give a day for the discussion of the White Paper on land utilisation? Perhaps he remembers saying that there would be an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Eden: I do remember saying it. I have said one or two things like that, I am afraid, but I do not see any hope of getting to it before Christmas, although I agree that a Debate is desirable.

Mr. Buchanan: Yesterday I gave notice that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for an opportunity to refer to Scottish housing during to-day's Debate, but I am wondering whether the terms of the Amendment which is to be taken will preclude it. One does not want to intervene in an English Debate in order to refer to Scottish matters, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is not some way of finding time for a separate Debate upon the terrible and deplorable conditions of housing in Scotland.

Major Lloyd: Before my right hon. Friend replies, I should like urgently to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Eden: As regards some Debate on a future occasion, I certainly do not close my mind to it. I know the urgency of the problem which hon. Members rightly want to discuss, but I cannot promise that there will be an occasion for it between now and Christmas. On the other hand, I would suggest, subject of course to you, Mr. Speaker, that the terms of to-day's Amendment are wide enough to enable Scottish hon. Members to refer to Scottish housing. I should have thought there was no reason whatever why that should not be done, and I do not think Southern Members would take the least objection if hon. Members from Scotland should choose to do so.

Mr. Buchanan: None of us want to intervene to raise questions relating to Scotland which may have no relationship to the main course of the Debate, because that would be unfair to English Members. But the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Scottish housing was probably the worst problem in Britain until the bombing took place in London. I would therefore urge him to look again at the situation to see whether he can give us an opportunity for a Debate. I do not want to appear to be in conflict or in competition with English Members; all I want is to have something done to help to remedy the deplorable conditions in Scotland. I would ask the Leader of the House to consider this matter as an issue of importance.

Mr. Eden: I can tell the hon. Member now that I am perfectly willing to consider whether I can find a separate date for this important matter, but I certainly think he is wrong if he believes that a speech on Scottish housing will conflict with the general tenor of to-day's Debate. The Amendment, wisely, is widely drawn. It refers to:
an adequate long-term housing programme.

Mr. Buchanan: Will it apply?

Mr. Eden: I think it applies equally to Scotland and to England. Hon. Members should, I suggest, seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in regard to Scottish housing, on the understanding that any

such mention does not preclude our trying to arrange a date later on, as soon as we possibly can.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if some hon. Members from Scotland try to catch your eye on the occasion of the Adjournment of the House before Christmas, you might look favourably in their direction? I fully agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Major Lloyd). If a number of Scottish speeches were made to-day, they would call for a reply from a Scottish Minister. It would be no use making the speeches without a reply from a Minister, and that would contract the opportunity for the Debate which we know that many English Members, particularly those from the bombed areas, are anxious to have.

Mr. Speaker: I doubt very much whether such a Debate would be in Order on the Adjournment, because it would involve legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I have no doubt that the ingenuity of Scottish hon. Members would be sufficient to enable them to indicate that the administrative powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which are very wide, could be exercised with greater vigour than they are at present, and thus allow us to make the points which we wish to make without raising questions involving legislation.

Mr. Buchanan: One of my reasons for wishing to speak is that I wish to criticise the Secretary of State for Scotland for not using the powers which he now possesses. It is one of the things about which I feel deeply and strongly. I am proposing to concern myself not with future legislation, but with the powers which the Minister now possesses.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the importance of housing, might I ask the Leader of the House to agree to suspend the Rule to-day so that we may be able to have a proper discussion on the matter?

Mr. Eden: I am in the hands of the House. I have not done so because, from inquiries which I made, I thought there would be adequate time for Debate.

Mr. Lipson: Could not my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the matter?

Mr. Petherick: May I ask the Leader of the House how long he expects the first Order on Friday week will take, because I understand that we want to have the whole day devoted to the Polish question?

Mr. Eden: My hope is that the first Order will not take any time, since it is the Report stage of Supplementary Estimates that have already been discussed in Committee. I was hoping that it might be largely formal.

Mr. Stephen: Could we be told what form the Debate upon Greece to-morrow is to take; whether it is to be on the Motion for the Adjournment, or upon an Amendment to the Address?

Mr. Keeling: Would my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House consider further the question of giving us another hour to-day?

Mr. Bowles: Could we begin to stake out a claim for a Debate upon the recent Civil Aviation Conference in Chicago?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member can begin staking out a claim, but I must not begin to make promises.

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), all I know officially is that there is on the Order Paper an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) which covers the question. I understand that another Amendment is to be put forward, and it may be that that would prove to be a more convenient one on which to have a Debate, but I am in the hands of the House.

Mr. McGovern: May I ask whether this other proposed Amendment which is considered likely to be more suitable, is one upon which no Division will take place? Is that why it is considered more suitable?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had time to look at the proposed Amendment. When hon. Members have had time to see it, then perhaps we can decide.

Mr. Stephen: Hon. Members will be lost if they do not know the terms of the proposed Amendment before to-morrow, and I wonder if there is not some way by which its terms could be given to us to-day?

Mr. Speaker: That is one of the difficulties about Amendments which are handed in shortly before a Debate. I

must consider the Amendment and I cannot give a decision offhand. My feeling at the moment is that there is now a satisfactory Amendment on the Paper which would enable the whole issue to be raised.

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[Sixth Day]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th November]:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Captain Sidney.]

Question again proposed.

HOUSING

12.18 p.m.

Captain Cobb: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals for dealing with housing either with regard to the speedy repair of bomb damage or the formulation of an adequate long-term housing programme.
In moving this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, may I say that I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, that it has had the good fortune to catch your eye, because I believe there is a very general desire among hon. Members to discuss this extremely important matter of housing. The concern which is felt over housing conditions is not by any means confined to hon. Members of this House. Probably more interest and more concern are felt throughout the country about housing conditions than ever before in our history, and I believe that is largely due to the knowledge of housing conditions in our great towns and cities which so many people acquired when children and their parents were evacuated from the towns five years ago. That knowledge came as a very great shock to them, and I have no doubt that there is a very real desire that those shocking conditions should be improved, and, also a very real determination not to tolerate them for longer than is absolutely possible. Five years have elapsed since then, five years during which there has been virtually no building of new houses and the maintenance work of existing houses has been on a very


small scale, and in those five years, also, a great deal of damage and destruction have resulted from air raids. It is for these reasons that I regret that the passage referring to housing in the Gracious Speech is of so extremely cursory a character. I would like to remind the House of what the Gracious Speech said:
Progress will be made in fulfilling the urgent tasks of providing additional housing accommodation and of increasing supplies of civilian goods.
I cannot help feeling that this somewhat off-hand way of referring to housing rather implies that a shortage of houses is just one of those rather tiresome things, like a shortage of rubber teats, and I think a more effective reference to housing should have been made in the Gracious Speech.
This Amendment is in two parts, intended to cover the two aspects of housing with which we are most concerned, the immediate and most pressing problem of the repair of bomb damage and the long-term post-war housing programme. I am most strongly of the opinion that the only thing which the Government deserves on account of its action in respect of the repair of bomb damage is criticism of the most unfriendly kind. When I come up to London every week to attend to my Parliamentary duties I pass through a part of southern England which was probably more hardly hit by the flying bomb than any other part of the country. It is virtually three months since the flying bomb attacks stopped, and from what I can see far too little has been done to repair the damage caused by those bombs. We still see street after street of houses with windows broken and roofs damaged. For all these months the weather has been getting into those houses, and one is really horrified at the thought that through what appears to be the neglect and the mismanagement of the Government Departments concerned thousands of people are being obliged to live in overcrowded conditions with other families, or in damp corners of their own damaged houses, or, what is far worse, eke out a wretched existence in surface shelters.
On every side one hears from the owners or occupiers of damaged property the same story of men who arrive late in the morning to work, who knock off work long before the end of the day, and spend the greater part of the day idling and playing cards. On the other hand one is told—I have had conversations with one person

concerned—of men who at considerable self-sacrifice and inconvenience to themselves answered the Government's call to come to London to help in the repair of bomb damage and who will return to their homes in the provinces disgusted because they have found that it was impossible to do any work. There was no supervision, no materials and no instructions. I have been told, too, of contractors who brought their staff up to London but have received no help or co-operation whatsoever from the Ministry of Works. One hears these stories so frequently that however much one discounts them there is a feeling that there must be a large measure of truth in them.
I think the Prime Minister made a wise decision a few weeks ago in appointing a Minister of Works who is a Member of this House. There are so many individuals who are affected by bomb damage that it is essential that hon. Members who represent them should be in close and daily contact with the Minister concerned. I think that was a wise decision; whether the choice of the Minister is equally wise is a question which time will answer. I am sure that the new Minister of Works is fully aware of the immense responsibility which rests upon him and will use every endeavour to improve the shocking conditions which exist in these bomb-damaged areas to-day. I should like, if I may, to offer him one word of advice. No doubt he is carrying out investigations into his Department, and I should be glad to know that he is going to satisfy himself about the capabilities and the number of temporary officials who have found their way into the Ministry of Works during the war. I have a very shrewd suspicion that they are not by any means up to the standard which we expect and get from our permanent Civil Service.
Although one is bound to condemn the action of the Ministry of Works so far as this particular work is concerned, it is only fair, I think, to pay a tribute to the work done by Lord Portal during the time he was at the Ministry in respect of the demonstration houses. No doubt a great many hon. Members have been to Northolt and seen them, and while some are better than others, and while there may be some about which we do not care very much, there is no doubt that the work of the Minister in respect of those


demonstration houses has been really valuable, and it is only right that full appreciation of it should be expressed. If everything were equal and one had nothing else to think about probably the great majority of us would favour house No. 9, the wide-fronted brick-and-tile house, which in my judgment is pretty well everything that a house ought to be. But there are other considerations to be borne in mind.
Most of us are tremendously impressed with the need for building houses quickly and in large numbers after the war, and it is for that reason that I for one, and I am sure many others who have seen the houses, were so deeply impressed with the prefabricated steel-framed house No. 7. To my mind it compares so favourably with the Portal prefabricated bungalow that I should like to urge the Ministry to reconsider their decision about the Portal bungalow. Let me compare the two. The Portal bungalow costs about £600 and the No. 7 house costs about £730—estimated—but whereas the Portal bungalow will house on one site only one family, this No. 7 will house two families, thus providing double the amount of accommodation on the sites which are occupied. Further, only 900 man-hours are needed to erect one of these dwellings, as compared with an estimate of 500 or 600 man-hours for the Portal bungalow, and a very large amount of unskilled labour can be used. To my mind the comparison between the two is so immensely in favour of the house, which, moreover, looks like a house, and not like a chicken house, that I think it would be wise of the Government to reconsider their programme in respect of these temporary dwellings to see whether they cannot produce these prefabricated No. 7 houses on a far larger scale.
Most of us, I think, were very much impressed with the various labour-saving devices in these houses, including the built-in furniture, which makes such good use of the space available and, incidentally, does not collect the dust in the way that ordinary furniture does. With all due respect to hon. Ladies, I consider that a man to-day is every bit as well qualified to express an opinion about the inside and the working of a house as any woman.

Viscountess Astor: Nonsense.

Captain Cobb: The Noble Lady probably does not realise it, but most men in the country have been doing a great deal of house-maiding and washing.

Viscountess Astor: The men have been doing that for five years; the women have been doing it for 5,000 years.

Captain Cobb: I compliment the Noble Lady; she does not look her age. I think that all the labour-saving devices, and the infinitely better interior design of those houses, are going to bring a great deal of additional comfort and happiness to the working-class housewife, which is all to the good. I hope that preparations are being made with the industries concerned, to have these fittings and equipment produced on a mass scale, which must reduce the price very considerably and, as a result, lower the cost to the consumer. The same, of course, applies to gas and electricity. If these things are to be used by the poorer-paid members of the working class, it is essential that gas and electricity should be reduced to a price which is within the compass of the average working-class purse.
I must say that I was disappointed with those houses in one respect. Not one of them was capable of holding a family of more than five persons. I hope that that does not mean that the Government's view is that there is something indecent about having more than three children. After all, we want a substantial increase in the birth rate. Some of the more enthusiastic protagonists of family allowances appear to think that such allowances will alone lead to an improvement in the birth rate. I do not believe that to be so at all. I should be very sorry to be asked what is the cause of the declining birth rate. I was asked that question eight or nine years ago at my by-election, and the only answer I could give was that it was due to the fact that women were producing babies less frequently than they used to do. I was not satisfied with that answer, and I do not think my questioner was either, but I certainly think that one contributing factor, at least, to the declining birth rate is the lack of suitable houses for parents of large families to store them in, and I hope that the Government do, in fact, propose to prepare for such houses as the size of our families justifies.
The Minister of Health has recently been in touch with local authorities on the question of the preparation of sites. I understand he is to wind up the Debate to-day. I hope he will give us some information on what sites are available and whether he is satisfied that every local authority which will be obliged to operate a housing programme immediately after the war has, at least, enough sites available now, and is preparing them to ensure that building can commence as soon as possible. I want to ask him, too, about those sites which are held for private development. Are labour and raw materials to be made available to those private developers? They deserve consideration for the part they have played between the two wars, and I should like to know whether they too are going to have facilities for getting their sites ready.
On the subject of subsidies, the Minister of Health told local authorities a few days ago, that he hoped to communicate with them on the subject quite shortly. I hope that it really is going to be "quite shortly," in the sense in which we mean it on the back benches here, and not in that of the Front Bench. After all, it is only fair to local authorities to let them know where they stand financially before they start elaborating a housing programme. We, in this House, have been accustomed during the last few months to involving ourselves in very heavy financial post-war commitments without being quite sure where the money is to come from. I think we must expect local authorities to show a greater measure of responsibility in that respect. I think there will be a strong protest from the local authorities at being expected to produce a post-war housing programme before the Government have told them how they will stand in respect to subsidies.
It was about three years ago that I first started making inquiries about what was being done to extend the production of building materials in this country. I have not yet been able to get an answer. We are fortunate, now, in having two Ministers, one of whom must be concerned in this, and I hope that one of them is going to give me the answer I want. We all know what an immense amount of money was spent in the years between the wars, in building houses with materials bought from foreign producers. There is nothing except timber which we

cannot produce here. I want to make sure that consultations and discussions are taking place with the owners of plants which produce building materials, to ensure that there shall be no shortage of any kind when we are ready to start our building programme. This applies to the ordinary house-building materials, but it applies also to the new types, and especially steel. I think that, probably, a great deal could be done now to produce those steel frames which are going to be used very largely in house building after the war. We constantly hear of aircraft workers who are complaining either that they have been stood down, or that they have not enough work to do. Surely, some use could be made of those men? They are accustomed to working in steel, and, if they only had the opportunity, I am sure they could do a great deal towards producing the material we shall need after the war. I would like to make the suggestion that however much building material we can produce surplus to requirements, that surplus might very well be carried to the sites on which houses are going to be built, so that as soon as the war is over, there will be no possible excuse for delay. Everything should be ready to ensure that the houses go up immediately.
When the Minister of Health was a back bench Member—not very long ago—he addressed the House on housing, and expressed a most decided preference for houses as compared with flats. I have no doubt that everybody agrees with him. The ideal is for every family to have a house and garden, but we have to be practical. I am tremendously impressed, when I walk round my own constituency, to see what immense areas of what should be open space, are cluttered up with small buildings, each housing only one family. I know there is a prejudice against flats, and I believe that is largely due to the lack of imagination which has been shown by the people who have built flats. The greatest complaint one hears in connection with flats is the noise of the family overhead. Surely, it should be possible to design, not flats in blocks, but houses in blocks. It is a psychological truth that the noise one's own children make overhead in a bedroom is sweet music, but that the noise made by other people's children is made purposely to annoy. I am quite sure that if a little vision, a little imagination, were shown about the designing of flats a


great deal of that prejudice would disappear.
Incidentally, I believe it is essential that there should be lifts in blocks of flats, and I believe, too, it would overcome a great deal of the prejudice if it were possible to arrange a system of central heating. It may be that people have to be taught to understand flats. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who has been chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee for many years, knows well that the prejudice felt against flats is less in London than elsewhere. That is because people have been obliged to get accustomed to them. I do not believe that the average flat-dweller is a member of an unhappy family. I am sure we could make more use of available space in our large towns throughout the country if we were to build upwards more than we do.
I want to ask a question which may possibly arouse some opposition from my hon. Friends opposite. What is to be the position of free enterprise after the war? Free enterprise, whether one approves of it or not—I do approve of it—played a great part in housing in the years between the wars. The figures show that something like three-quarters of the houses erected in that period were built by free enterprise, and less than 500,000 of such houses required a subsidy. I am not going to suggest that private enterprise is perfect. In some respects I am prepared to admit that it compares unfavourably with building done by public authorities. Hon. Members who have driven down to Northolt may remember that on one side of the L.C.C. North Hammersmith Estate there is private property, and on the other side L.C.C. property. That estate had the advantage, of course, of being built in the days when the L.C.C. was controlled by a Conservative majority, but I think, and I believe most hon. Members will agree, that the work of the public authority there is better, in every way, than the work of private enterprise on the other side of the road.
The best representatives of private enterprise are perfectly aware of the fact that in some respects their colleagues fall short of what we consider is in conformity with modern standards, and they are as anxious as anybody to ensure that

those standards should be improved. The National Housebuilders' Registration Council, which has been set up by them, more or less on an advisory basis, is something which I believe should be given a great deal more authority than it has to-day. I am inclined to suggest that there should be by-laws, or legislation, to ensure that it will be illegal to sell a house which is not really up to what is considered the model standard. There must be some sort of compulsion about this, because there is no doubt that large numbers of people were badly swindled in the years between the wars. I am sure that anybody who has had contact with those unfortunate people will recognise the truth of that, but the fact that private enterprise has failed in some cases is no argument for trying to make it disappear.
In the early stages after the war, there is going to be a great shortage of labour and material. I should like to have an assurance that all the labour and all the material will not be made available to the local authorities only, but that there will be a fair share-out between local authorities and private enterprise. I am not asking for special favour for one or the other, but I think that both should have a fair deal. We must remember, of course, that there is going to be a great demand for the work of the private builder, especially from those people who have accumulated savings during the war. To my mind the best way for most people to invest their savings would be in a house of their own. That is a need that private enterprise alone will be able to fill.
I come to a question which I have discussed before, namely, the question of a Minister for Housing. It has been raised on many occasions during the last few months, and none of the answers given to us from time to time have satisfied me. I must say I was oppressed by the Prime Minister's description of what he has set up, and what he described as "a housing squad". I listened to this unwieldy list of Ministers who share the responsibility for this business, and I could not help feeling that "awkward squad" would be a far more suitable term than "housing squad". Five or six Ministers are concerned with a job which ought to be the responsibility of one man only, and that man should be armed with all the authority which is necessary to get


an effective programme put through. He should have authority over his colleagues in the Cabinet, authority over industry, over everybody, to ensure that some real drive is put into this housing business at the earliest possible moment and until the work is finished.
The Prime Minister told us that one of the difficulties about appointing another Minister as Minister for Housing who was not the Minister of Health, was the fact that the Minister of Health is accepted as the ambassador between the Government and the local authorities. With very great respect to the Prime Minister may I say that is just nonsense. It is not true at all, that the Minister of Health is the only person who approaches local authorities. The Minister of Education is in constant touch with 355 local authorities every day and every hour. During the last five or six years the Home Secretary has been in constant touch with local authorities over matters affecting Civil Defence. I cannot believe that the virtue of the local authorities is likely to be outraged at the suggestion of yet another Minister being brought in. I am quite serious about this. I feel that the arguments in favour of one responsible Minister who shall have no other responsibility apart from housing is so overwhelming as to be unanswerable.
The Prime Minister, in his famous broadcast about nine months ago, spoke of the three most urgent needs after the war as the provision of food, work and home. I entirely agree with him, but I think he got them in the wrong order. I believe that the deepest concern of all, in the minds of most people in this country, is whether or not they are to have decent homes after the war. All our efforts should be directed to ensuring that their simple and natural desire should be brought to a fulfilment. If I were a working man, suffering from time to time from poverty, unemployment or sickness I hope I would have enough philosophy to be able to stand up to it until things improved if I had a decent home in which to live. But if, on top of all those other misfortunes, I was obliged to live, and keep my wife, and try to bring up my family, in a verminous, insanitary, overcrowded dwelling, I should really feel that life was not worth living. In this matter of housing, to paraphrase the Prime Minister, too much is being endured by too many, for far too long. I

hope we shall have an assurance from the Government to-day to lead us to believe that they are in real earnest about this business.
I feel that in spite of the effort and all the money that was put into housing in the years between the two wars—and no one can deny that a great deal was done—results on the whole have been terribly disappointing. I hope we have learned a great deal from our past mistakes, and that we intend to do a great deal better in future than we did before. One essential, I am convinced, is complete harmony and co-operation between everybody engaged in this work—the Government, local authorities and capital and labour in the building and allied industries. If we have that, and a real determination to get on with the job, I believe we shall achieve some remarkably satisfactory developments. I am convinced that the credit of this Government, and the credit of whatever Government may succeed them, is largely bound up with their achievements in housing. Our people have borne a great deal during the last five years. On the whole, I think they have shown extraordinary patience and forbearance. I am convinced that that patience will wear very thin if they think the Government are not in real earnest about this matter. They are not likely to forgive or forget any short-comings in this respect. I hope, therefore, that both my right hon. Friends will make it clear that in respect of both these aspects of housing, they really mean business, and that it is the real intention of the Government to achieve the aim which we all have—the provision for every family of a home which will be worthy of a great people.

12.52 p.m.

Mr. Donald Scott: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think I need apologise to the House if, in seconding the Amendment so ably proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb), I deal largely with rural housing. I am aware we are to have a Debate on that special subject on Tuesday next, but this Amendment has been very widely framed, and quite candidly I feel we cannot divorce the two aspects of the problem in to-day's Debate. I have said in this House before, and a great many times outside it, that we in the country-


side have a housing problem which is as acute, but perhaps not so obvious, as that in the towns and cities. I shall go on saying that until, please God, the day will come when there will no longer be any need to repeat it. There is no necessity to overpaint the picture. The simple fact is that decades of agricultural depression have resulted in a large number of agricultural cottages, and indeed farm-houses, being a menace to those who live in them, and undoubtedly a deterrent to those who are thinking of entering the agricultural industry after the war.
This nation to-day looks forward to a reasonable level of agricultural prosperity, and conditions in that industry which will, at least, be comparable with those of any in the towns. The industry itself looks forward to attracting ex-Service people into it. We have, indeed, heard of the Government's scheme. I believe the success or failure of that scheme will depend not only on selection and training, but, finally, on the availability of suitable accommodation for the trainees when their training is finished. After all, one of the greatest factors in land settlement is the prospective settler's wife, and many a would-be countryman has hesitated to migrate to the country, because he knew he would be asking his wife to put up with housing conditions and amenities far below those in the towns and cities.
This problem which faces the countryside has to be dealt with in two ways; we have to build new houses, and we have to see what can be done in the way of renovation. Let me deal with each in turn. As to the first, the need is so obvious that I need not waste the time of the House by dealing with it in detail. I would rather try to make my few points in the form of questions, some of which my right hon. and learned Friend may care to answer later. Has the Minister of Health definite knowledge of the number of rural houses which will be required in England and Wales immediately after the war? Have the rural district councils sufficient land either purchased or ready, or ear-marked for purchase, in order to carry out their individual schemes? Are the rural district councils really aware of the gigantic task that lies ahead of them? Are they fully awake to it? Are they making plans and specifications for materials, labour, water supply and electricity in

order that they can "get cracking" the moment the word "Go" is given? Will labour and materials be made available to the small contractor?
That is very important, because in almost every country town, and one might say in almost every large village, there is a small builder, a man with immense local experience of local conditions and types of buildings and materials and everything else. It is only right and proper he should have a chance of getting in too. In the same way, will it be possible to have material and direct estate labour made available for the estate owner or owner-occupier who wants to build agricultural cottages or repair existing cottages. I have seen a very large number of the agricultural cottages that have been built during the war. I say nothing about their interiors, but I must confess that in only one village, that of Thropton, in Northumberland, have my aesthetic susceptibilities not been hurt. It must be possible to build houses which match up with the local buildings, and at the same time tone in with the countryside. We do not want the same drabness of type from Land's End to John o' Groats. We are still individualists. In spite of a great deal of what has been said in this Chamber, we are not so much planning fodder.
There is a final question which is being asked by a good many people. What proportion, if any, of the temporary houses will be allocated to rural needs? That again is important, because we shall want accommodation for trainees when their course is finished. If we do not give it to them, they will leave the land, and we shall not see them again. Quite obviously, too, we do not want too much competition between the old hands and the new entrants into the industry. I am not myself convinced that the steel house is the answer to the country problem. I would rather see wooden structures. That of course is a matter of opinion and a matter for expert advice. There is another point when dealing with these agricultural cottages, which affects my constituency and a number of important agricultural counties in the North of England. In that part of the world we have a social custom which is unknown in the South, that is to say, we like to live where our work is, on the farm. The agricultural worker tends to live in little clusters or communities on the farm where he works. I need not trouble the


House with the reasons for that. They are partly historic, partly climatic, but that is the way we want to live. The houses which have been put up during the war have been erected in the villages, and in some cases have been difficult to let. I suggest that, in future schemes, it should be permissible for the local authority to build those houses, on or near the farms where they are required, always provided that a good case is made for such action.
I want to turn to the existing rural cottages and their renovation. Any observant visitor to this country will be struck, I think, by the wide variety of types, the beauty, and the quaintness of many of our rural cottages. It is not too much to say that our domestic rural architecture, both of cottages and of farm houses, is one of the assets we have for attracting overseas visitors. It may be the thatched roofs, the black and white fronts, or the grey stone walls—each has its characteristic appeal. They tone in so well with the countryside as to seem to be a happy blending of the work of God and of man. I say "seem," because too often close close inspection shows them to be an unhappy blending of the work of man and the devil, with low ceilings, damp rooms, lack of water and sanitation and often inadequate windows. I am not suggesting that all, or even a large number, of the total cottages are in that state, nor am I suggesting that a house simply because it is picturesque or beautiful should be allowed to stand. What I mean is that there must be a good many thousand of houses which are now derelict or partly derelict, and are not fit for human occupation, but a substantial number of them, by a little commonsense application of labour and material and some thought, could be made into reasonable habitations. That would save a great deal of labour and material which would otherwise have to be devoted to building new houses, and would protect the beauty of the countryside. It is high time that we had another survey of the agricultural housing problem. Far too many dwellings were condemned before on very hasty judgment, and there was a complete lack of uniformity as between county and county, and indeed as between district and district.
The machinery for such renovation has existed since 1926. The House will

remember the Housing (Rural Workers) Act that year. That Act was meant to be administered by the county councils, but a good many county councils delegated their powers to the rural district councils, and progress was very slow indeed. Between 1926 and 1937 the average number of houses repaired each year was only 1,253 and in the last year before the war the figure had reached only 3,842. There must be something fundamentally wrong with that Act, although the idea behind it is perfectly good. It is much too permissive, and the financial arrangements are not sufficiently elastic. I hope that before long we shall have Acts on the Statute Book which will allow for a very thorough renovation of agricultural cottages throughout the country.
I know it is true that the 17 per cent. of the people in this country who live in rural houses have not been subject to enemy bombing to any degree; but their war-time life has been a very busy one, and one of sacrifice. They have made a very substantial contribution towards the solution of our difficulties. Therefore, I do not hesitate to do some special pleading for those who have worked so nobly. The three partners in the industry: the farm-worker, the farmer, and the land-owner—not forgetting that dual purpose animal the owner-occupier, with whom I rank myself—all look forward to better times; but we realise that one of the essentials for better times must be better houses for those who do most of the work. Too often farm-workers have had to live with relatives when their days of work are over. I hope that the local authorities are going to take the utmost pains to see that in all their schemes small houses are provided, for the independent agricultural workers to have little homes of their own in the eventide of their lives. That applies equally to other parts of the country, where small flats or small houses, as the case may be, should be provided for aged people.
I want to deal with the subject of temporary houses. Recently I have noticed that people are beginning to be a little worried about the supply of temporary houses, and I have come to the conclusion that their fears have some definite foundation, as the following story will show. A firm on the North-East coast are willing and anxious to go in for mass production to make Tarran houses,


which have been approved by the Ministry of Works. That firm, one of integrity and experience, is under contract with the Ministry of Works to go into production in April, 1945, and to produce something like 2,000 houses in the first 12 months. There is only one thing hanging up that very excellent scheme: there is no suitable factory available. The Board of Trade have been very politely helpful, in a negative sort of way. That firm has put its name down on a list of firms who want factory space. The firm is asking for 85,000 square feet. There the matter remains for the time being. Surely, if houses are wanted, if that type of house is approved, and if 40 houses a week is not to be sneezed at, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works should get together and see that suitable factory space is provided at once for that firm. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works will give me, at least, a promise that he will go into the matter. I shall feel that if, by my remarks to-day, I have helped to house 40 families a week, I have not wasted my time and I have not bored the House in vain.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: The House will be very largely in agreement with the terms in which the Amendment has been moved and seconded. I am particularly interested in housing in the towns. I would like to say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb), if he will not think me impertinent, that I thought he had made a most valuable contribution by his speech to the solution of the housing problem. The one thing that I regretted—and it formed a very small part of what he said—was his indictment against the workers for idleness. While I do not deny the facts that he mentioned, it may have been due to no fault of their own.

Captain Cobb: I thought I had made that quite clear.

Mr. Silkin: If that is so, I did not understand my hon. and gallant Friend. I am very glad of that. I am glad that this day is being devoted to consideration of the housing problem. The whole House will recognise that housing is the most important of our domestic problems, and

the one calling for the highest priority. Many speakers in the Debate on the Address have confirmed that. I would mention, in particular, the mover of the Address and the Prime Minister himself. But, even though there may be complete agreement, I doubt if the Government entirely appreciate the urgency and the magnitude of the task in front of us and the drastic steps which will have to be taken if we are to provide speedily the homes that are necessaary. One sometimes tends to forget that this is a human problem, which affects millions of men, women and children, who are living in intolerable conditions, unhealthy, uncomfortable, congested, inconvenient, ugly, dirty, and dreary. I think every one of those adjectives is justified. Very often perhaps four or five families may be sharing a house which was built for occupation by one family, without the most elementary needs, without water supply, without w.c., without facilities for storage of food or for cooking. I have seen gas stoves on landings, without any accommodation for cooking arrangements. These are the conditions in which a large proportion of the coming generation are being brought up. That is the generation upon which the future of these islands depends. It is difficult to appreciate these conditions unless one has actually lived in them or has had very close and extensive contact with them. Perhaps it is only those who have experienced these conditions, either actually or vicariously, who can be really imbued with a wholehearted determination to sweep them away without delay. We can be sure that they will not be tolerated so patiently after the war as they were before; and it is right that they should not be so tolerated.
Our tasks can be divided into the immediate tasks and the long-term tasks. The Amendment differentiates between those categories. What are our immediate tasks? First, the repair of houses which have been damaged by enemy action, and the provision of temporary houses for those and for other categories of persons. I do not think it is necessary to go into the problem of the damaged house in detail, because there was a full Debate on the subject on 27th October. The Government have placed the responsibility for dealing with these repairs on the Minister of Works—origin-


ally on Lord Portal. In that Debate we were informed that the number of wardamaged houses that required secondstage repairs on 22nd September was 800,000. We were promised that the second-stage repairs would be completed by the beginning of April—that is, in a period of about 28 weeks from 22nd September. To carry out that task would have meant dealing with an average of about 28,000 a week.
We were informed by the Minister of Health in that Debate that, in fact, during the first four weeks, 120,000 houses had been dealt with, that is an average of 30,000 per week. The Minister of Health went on to say that it was hoped that that rate of progress would be increased as the supply and distribution of materials and the general organisation improved. Although my right hon. Friend, very wisely, would not commit himself to the exact rate at which improvement would take place, I think the general tenor of his statement was that he had every reason to hope that this 30,000 a week would be improved upon. On the whole, London hon. Members regarded the statement of the Minister of Health with reasonable satisfaction, and we were looking forward to second stage repairs being completed, roughly, by the beginning of the Spring.
What has happened since? Why was it found necessary to dismiss Lord Portal, who had served at the Ministry of Works for over three years and had gained considerable experience, on the whole, without a great deal of criticism? Why was it necessary—speaking with the greatest respect in the world—to appoint an untried and inexperienced hon. Member in his place? Why this swapping of horses in mid-stream, especially as, in the field of repairs to war damaged houses, the House had been reasonably well satisfied with the assurances given to it on the 27th October? It is, of course, gratifying to hon. Members of the House of Commons to have the Minister of Works in this House able to speak about the problems of his Department to hon. Members from day to day, but we have had the advantage of that position for over four years, because we have had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, who has always been available and has dealt quite satisfactorily and adequately with the problems

of the Ministry of Works. So far as I know, there has been not a single complaint at the way in which the affairs of the Ministry of Works were dealt with in this House by the Parliamentary Secretary.
It is not as if the new Minister has been altogether free from criticism. It has been said that, by encouraging the return of evacuees to London, he has himself partly contributed to the difficulties of the housing situation, and, in some ways, perhaps, it is poetic justice that he should now risk his reputation in trying to put right the problem which he has partly created. Therefore, I do not propose to probe further into the mysteries of the appointment of the new Minister of Works. I am more interested in results. Will the right hon. Gentleman deliver the goods? I am prepared to wait until the beginning of April—the date mentioned—and if, by then, the 800,000 war damaged houses will have received their second stage repairs—and on what I have already said, this is not an impossible task—then I should be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success and so will the people of Greater London. But, if he fails, then I prophesy that this House will not be interested in the reasons for his failure, and I shall then expect my right hon. Friend to follow the course into the darkness into which Lord Portal has descended, though, perhaps, only temporarily.
But that is not all. There is a second task confronting my right hon. Friend. Even if the war damaged houses are all repaired, he has still another hurdle to jump. He has to begin the delivery of temporary houses at the rate of about 2,000 a week from next June. That is the promise which Lord Portal made and which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has given, no doubt on the assurance given by the Minister of Works. My right hon. Friend ought, perhaps, even to improve upon this, because, as I understand it, he has been appointed to improve upon the work of the previous Minister of Works, and he will have many advantages. He has been promised that, whatever special powers may be necessary, he will have them, and he has direct approach to the Prime Minister, which is a not inconsiderable advantage. So we shall expect at least 2,000 temporary houses a week from next June. Other-


wise, I will consider that my right hon. Friend will have failed.
In saying this, I hope he will not regard the existing type of temporary house as entirely satisfactory. They are all wasteful in the use of land and they are expensive. Their siting is difficult, and I have been informed that, on a number of occasions, care has not been taken to ensure that the necessary services are available on the sites which have been selected. For instance, there is an inadequate amount of sewerage and drainage, and there will not be a sufficient water supply. I hope that great care will be taken there.
I would have preferred a prefabricated type of temporary house which could have been easily converted into a permanent house, even if the life of the subsequent permanent house was somewhat less than the life of the traditional house. Indeed, I think that, perhaps, there would be great advantages in designing a type of house which would have rather a shorter life than the ordinary house, so that we should not be encumbered with out-of-date houses for the greater part of their life. I hope we shall continue the search to devise something more satisfactory than the type at present in use. In that connection, I agree very much with the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Preston. The No. 7 type is a very satisfactory type, and might very well be employed. At this stage, I do not propose to canvass the particular type of house which I was instrumental in having built.
Before I leave my right hon. Friend—I hope I have not been unkind to him, because I certainly did not intend to be—may I say I would he very glad if, when he speaks, he will state what special powers he proposes to ask for, and whether any changes in his functions, or in his relationship with Lord Woolton, are contemplated, and what is to be the position of Sir Malcolm Eve. Is he to continue, because he has impressed many of us with his energy and efficiency? Finally, does the Minister accept the challenge which I have put to him, and does he think that the terms of the challenge are fair and reasonable?
So much for the first part of the immediate task. Next, I want to say that it will be our duty to provide accommoda-

tion for those in the Forces who have married during the war and who will need a home on demobilisation. There will be a certain number of men in the Forces who gave up their homes on mobilisation—many of them left them—and who will not be able to get them back again when they come back. We will have to provide for them. In the words of my right hon. Friend, in the Debate on 15th March there will have to be provided immediately homes for families living in slum houses scheduled for demolition, but which, owing to the war, have remained standing for five years, and homes for those living in overcrowded conditions, as defined by the Housing Act of 1936. That is the immediate task which confronts us, and the Minister of Health, in his speech in March last, referred to these classes of families. His estimate was that a million houses would be required.
In my view, that is a hopeless understatement of the task, and I think I can satisfy the House that our immediate needs, as I have defined them, will be considerably more than the million houses suggested. First of all, let us take the number of marriages that have taken place since the outbreak of the war. I have made some inquiries, and I find that about 2,500,000 marriages have taken place since the war. I would suggest to the House that about half the families married will require a home after the war. I have personal knowledge of 20 families married since the war began, and 18 of these will require a home. Perhaps that is not a good way of arriving at a conclusion, but I am prepared to put forward the suggestion that about half of them, or 1,2500,000, will want a home, and, if we add the slums actually scheduled for demolition and the increasing amount of overcrowding that exists at the present time, then I suggest that the immediate requirements will be 2,000,000 houses and not 1,000,000.
That is the measure of the immediate task. What is the Government policy? We are to begin the erection of 300,000 houses in the first two years after the war with Germany, and we are to provide about 250,000 temporary houses, which are going to be provided, as far as possible, during the war, and for which there is a certain amount of advance preparation of sites. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister if he will tell the House


what progress has been made. The temporary houses which are being provided now will be occupied as fast as they are being built. I think that is the intention. Local authorities have long waiting lists and it would be quite impossible to keep the temporary houses vacant while there are hundreds of thousands of families in immediate need of housing. Although the Minister of Health and the Minister of Works have stated that the temporary houses are for occupation by families with not more than two young children, one thing is quite certain—that it will be impossible for local authorities to refuse to accept families of any size in these temporary houses while they are rendered homeless, and, therefore, we are at once providing a problem for ourselves, and I do not envy the Minister of Health, because his position is that, while he is providing these temporary houses, he is creating overcrowding, which, at the same time, he is undertaking to get rid of.
May I say in passing, in dealing with these large families, that I very much agree with the hon and gallant Member for Preston? When I became chairman of the Housing Committee of the L.C.C., I found that provision for large families had not been made by my predecessors, and, whenever we got a large family, we had to provide them with two flats, which is not a very economic method of providing for the future of the nation. That is still the position, and I hope that will be taken into account and that we shall ensure that large families will be provided for under proper conditions and not in a casual way.
The temporary houses will be fully let as fast as they are built, and hardly any—I should say practically none—will be available for the men who have married while in the Services. How many permanent houses will be available under the present policy? How many will actually be completed within two years from the end of the war with Germany? May I point out that, according to the forecast of the Prime Minister, it is hoped that the war with Japan will come to an end in about 18 months after the war with Germany? Therefore, by the end of the period with which the Minister of Health is dealing, the men in the Forces will be demobilised on a very large scale. That will be the period when he or his successor will be having the problem of providing

homes for men in the Forces who have married during the war. What will be available to them?
I have already indicated that there will be practically no temporary houses available. As regards permanent houses, 300,000, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is lucky, will have been started in the first two years. How many will be available? Half of them? Let us say that 200,000 will actually be built and that the other 100,000 will be in process of building. But by that time the number of marriages will have still further increased. Probably we shall be needing about 2,000,000 homes at that time and there will be about 200,000 available. One ex-Service family in 10 will be housed and nine ex-Service families out of 10 will be disappointed. That is not a fanciful position but the position in which we shall find ourselves at the expiration of two years after the war unless something more is done.
It is for that reason that I have suggested to the House that the Government are not entirely appreciative of the seriousness of the situation. Nothing will cause greater disillusionment and distress than that large numbers of ex-Service men should once more, after this war as after the last, find themselves without homes and without any reasonable prospect of getting homes in the near future. Speed is essential and steps should be taken at once to ensure that as many homes as possible are available at the expiration of two years after the war. I know that in previous Debates I said that I doubted whether even the number that the Minister of Health is proposing to provide will actually be available, and I still retain that doubt as long as we proceed in the manner in which it is proposed to proceed. I want to appeal to the House to regard this as a most exceptional and urgent problem and some further steps will have to be taken than are proposed at the present time.
Now I come to the long-term programme. In the speech to which I have referred, the Minister of Health estimated that there would be need of about 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 houses and that these would be provided in about 10 to 12 years. Even on my right hon. and learned Friend's estimate, this is an admission that something like 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 people are to-day living in


conditions which are most unsatisfactory. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's estimate is again a gross underestimate of the situation. I want to ask the House to bear in mind the following facts. First of all, it is known that about one-third of the existing houses or about 4,000,000 of them are now over 100 years old. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Oh, yes, I have taken the trouble to check that particular fact, as indeed, I have endeavoured to check every figure I propose quoting to the House. My hon. Friend can say "No" as much as he likes. I am prepared to stand by that figure. The majority of these houses which were built over 100 years ago are now obsolete and unsatisfactory and in the course of the next few years after the end of the war ought to be demolished, if we are to carry out the policy which the mover of the Amendment put forward to this House.
While we have still a long way to go before we abate the overcrowding under the existing standard, it will be recognised that the existing standard itself is most unsatisfactory. It is far too low. It contemplates that every room in the house, including the living room, will be used for sleeping purposes. I have again made a calculation and it is possible for something like 10 human beings to sleep in four rooms, one of which is the living room, under the existing standard, provided some of them are children. Before very long, public opinion will demand the raising of the overcrowding standard.
There are a very large number of families sharing houses who, if they are going to have a home of their own, will have to be taken from the houses which they are at present occupying, and those houses will once again be used for the occupation of one family, as was originally intended. In London alone two families out of every three are sharing a house, and I believe that the same conditions obtain in practically every other large town in the country. Finally, we have still to make provision for a section of the community who have been sadly neglected in the past—I mean single women and aged couples. In the past, when we have provided perhaps five hundred houses, we might have provided five for the aged couples and perhaps none for the single women. But they are a sec-

tion of the community who are as important as any other, and as regards the aged couples, they are an increasing proportion of the population, and a very large amount of housing will have to be provided for these categories of persons. Therefore, as against the 1,000,000 houses that are needed as our immediate problem, 2,000,000 will be a more accurate figure. I believe that in the policy on housing we are making the same mistake as we did in early part of the war. We are under-estimating our task and there is a danger of our meeting the same fate.
Our programme of housing will have to comprise the re-housing of the greater part of the population of this country. It is important that that should be borne in mind. If I am right, there are three conditions which will obtain. The first is, that we shall be able to give to the building worker a guarantee of permanent employment. If the problem is going to be confined to a relatively short period of 10 to 12 years we shall not be in a position to give that guarantee, but if, as I believe, the problem is far greater, then we can safely give a guarantee of permanent employment to the building operative. Secondly, re-housing on a vast scale like this will have to be accompanied by the replanning and redevelopment of most of the large towns of this country, and the two tasks—housing and planning—will have to go hand-in-hand. And thirdly, if the task is as big as I think it is, then we must proceed at far greater speed than is proposed at the present time. The period of providing 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 houses in 10 to 12 years will have to be very much curtailed, but, so far, the Government have shown no evidence that they have a long-term policy at all. Local authorities have not been permitted to buy land for a period of more than two years in respect of their housing plans.
Apparently, the vision of the Government is limited to two years. There is no policy on the location of industry, a vital question. It is no use re-housing your people unless you are locating your industry suitably for the people that you are re-housing. There is no policy on the vital problem of the high cost of land in urban areas, which was one of the purposes for which a White Paper on the control of land and leases was issued in order to deal with the vital problem of compensation and betterment As far back as October,


1943, the Minister of Town and Country Planning said that the Government took the view that the solution of the compensation and betterment problem was a necessary precedent to successful planning. They will go on doing so. We had a White Paper in June on the subject, but that White Paper has apparently been still-born. There has been no discussion of it and there is no reference to it in the King's Speech. There is no evidence that the Government are attacking the problem with the speed and efficiency of a military operation. "The Times", in a leading article recently, said that:
A military operation without an underlying strategy may win a battle but will never win a war.
I cordially agree with "The Times" that we shall not win the war against housing unless we have an underlying strategy on the subject.
So far I have been critic and perhaps it will be appropriate if for the rest of my speech I endeavour to be more constructive. Our first task is to treat the provision of homes as a crusade. If we can only get the Dunkirk spirit into the provision of homes, I think we shall make a great deal of progress. We have to prepare a long-term programme—we must not be satisfied by merely looking forward to two years—which will link up housing with the replanning of our towns and cities and with the location of industry. We have to have a Minister of Cabinet rank who will be ultimately responsible for the provision of houses. We have one at the present time. We have Lord Woolton but the difficulty about Lord Woolton is that he is not able to give his full time, energy and thought to the problem. It is vitally necessary that, whatever Minister is in charge of housing, he should give the whole of his time, thoughts and energy to the problem.
I believe that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health had nothing else to do—had no worries about the future Medical Service and no anxieties about the B.M.A., had not to reorganise local government, and had not to deal with Civil Defence—but to confine all his thoughts to housing we would make substantial progress. That is not the position. The Minister of Works has many other offices. He has to look after the Royal Parks and Royal Palaces and buildings, he has to issue licences; in fact,

he has a tremendous amount to do apart from dealing with the problem of housing and there ought to be at least one Minister in the Government who should be thinking of nothing else but housing. Probably the right solution would be that one of the Ministers without departmental duties should be given this particular task of having complete oversight over the work of housing.
I rather agree that it is not possible to concentrate all the work into one Department. That would not be possible. There are a number of Ministers, one of whom is sitting on the Front Bench now, without any departmental duties who could be given the task of complete oversight and control and responsibility with all necessary powers for the provision of houses. We have to control the price of building material and its use. There has been a great deal of agitation in this House recently to remove all control. I would like to put to hon. Members who take that view whether they would wish to end the control over the use of building materials so that they might be used for any purpose other than housing and be available to the highest bidder.
Then we shall have to deal with the problem of land. My right hon. Friend has made some attempt to deal with it for two years but that is not good enough. In a long-term programme you have to look further ahead than two years. We must speed up the process of the acquisition of land. I do not put it higher than that because I do not believe that that will be entirely satisfactory; I believe that the only real solution is the nationalisation of the land. I have arrived at that not because I am necessarily predisposed to that view but because I feel that only by the complete nationalisation of the land can we really have the land readily available when we want it. That, however, is perhaps too much to hope for in a Coalition Government, but if we are not to have the nationalisation of land, let us at least first deal with this vital question of compensation betterment because it affects the prices which have to be paid for urban land. Unless we deal with this problem, it means that every public improvement brings up the cost of the land against the local authority.
We have also to go in very much for research into alternative methods and materials. So long as we are confined


to traditional methods and traditional materials we shall not make very good progress. Then I ask that there shall be an immediate release of certain categories of men from the Forces. In particular, I ask that technicians should be released at once, because without technicians you can make very little progress. They are the foundation, the starting point of all housing work. I hope that both my right hon. Friends will exercise the fullest pressure to get technicians released from the Forces. In particular, I would suggest that they might apply for the release of a large number of civil engineers who will be of increasing importance in housing work. Let them carry out intensive training at once. We shall need all the building operatives we can possibly get, we shall need all the foremen and all the managers we can get, and there ought to be intensive training of all categories of men for all classes of work.
Then I ask that there shall also be control over the building industry. For many years to come the building industry will be a public service, and I do not think it will be entirely satisfactory if they are left to follow their own resources and their own course. In this Debate I do not propose to embark on the argument as between private and public enterprise; I think the position is far too grave to deal with the matter on the basis of one's political predilections. I think there is room for both. I agree that private enterprise made a contribution to housing in the years before the war, although it has not made the contribution which it thinks it has. I agree that it provided 3,000,000 houses out of 4,000,000 between the wars, but it did not provide the right type of houses—it provided mostly houses for sale, which meant that those who were fortunate enough to have the money to buy a house, or those who were forced by their needs to tighten their belts and put themselves in financial difficulties to get a house, got one, but the vast majority of the people who really needed houses and could not afford to buy one, were not in a position to get one.
I say that in the years after the war there will have to be considerable control over the building industry. First we shall have to control the type of house that will be built, we shall have to control the building industry to ensure that they work with efficiency, that they use up-to-

date methods, that they use the plant and equipment which will lighten their task. How is it that the Americans can build houses as cheaply as we do although they give their building operatives twice our rate of pay? I submit that it is almost entirely due to the fact that the building industry in America uses up-to-date methods and modern plant and equipment. I think this matter is so important that the Government should, if necessary, insist that the building industry in this country uses up-to-date and modern methods. We shall have to go in for a great deal of standardisation.
I remember, about a year ago, Lord Portal stated in another place that he was proposing to embark upon a considerable measure of standardisation. I should be very glad if, in replying, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could tell us something about the achievements in this respect and, if there are no achievements, perhaps he can tell us what he proposes doing about standardisation. That is one of the vital secrets of efficiency in the building industry. Perhaps he can tell us something about what is proposed as regards the use of Government factories. There are large numbers of Government factories, which have been most lavishly and efficiently equipped, and which could be turned over to the provision of building material on a large and efficient scale. It is most important that my right hon. and learned Friend should have his eye on those Government factories for I can foresee that some of these factories which may not be required after the war, if he is not careful, may be turned over to some other use.
I think that if we provide the building operative with a guarantee of full and permanent employment, if we provide him with a regular and a satisfactory wage, then we are entitled to ask him to give us a reasonable output of work without any restriction, and I am quite convinced that if we do this we shall not ask in vain. The building operative is as human as anybody else, and he is as much the victim of bad housing as any other section of the community. I am quite sure that we need not ask the building operative twice to give us the fullest possible output if we give him the conditions that are vital. However, do not let us make the mistake of putting it to the building operative that he is the only


factor in the speedy provision of houses, or in the cheap provision of houses. He is not. A house consists of land, building material, management and labour. I would rule out nobody who can be of assistance nor, as I have already said, would I allow any political preconceptions to dominate the task, but I would ask my right hon. Friends to do the same. If they should become satisfied as they go on—to take a hypothetical case—that in order to proceed with this task it is necessary to set up a public building service because they become convinced that the building industry has failed in the past, I would expect them not to hesitate to do that just as I would not hesitate to use private enterprise if it is capable of doing the task.
It must cut both ways. Houses will have to be provided for all who need them. We, on this side, are not claiming that people of no incomes should have a monopoly of houses—flying bombs and things like that have not discriminated as between one section of the community and another, although one tends sometimes to think that they have when one goes round London and finds that the poorer quarters have suffered most. All sections of the community are suffering to-day from the housing shortage, and in our task we have to provide for all sections of the community. Preference must not be given to those who can afford to buy. My right hon. Friend must not proceed on the line of allowing private enterprise to build houses for sale. Let them build houses to let. Let them build houses for those who need them. Our prime need is of houses to let, and need must be the only criterion. We are successfully fighting this war so that we may preserve our way of life and our democratic institutions, but it may well be that democracy may be in danger and our struggle will have been in vain if we do not solve speedily the problem of housing in decency and convenience for our people, and a very heavy responsibility for the future of democracy rests upon the shoulders of both my right hon. Friends. Let us, therefore, spare no efforts and allow no interests to stand in the way of its solution.

1.56 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: I think every speaker in this Debate has laid stress upon the importance of having one Minister over-ridingly responsible for

dealing with this acute problem of post-war housing, both for the planning and carrying out, and also to be responsible to this House. That is a view which I have held myself for a long time and expressed last year in the Debate on the King's Speech. Also, from time to time, I have put down Questions to try to elucidate the present form of responsibility, and I must say anybody who reads the answers to those Questions will still find himself in some doubt. The Prime Minister has answered Questions on the subject but even his answers in this particular case have not been blessed with his usual lucidity. I hold the view, which I believe is shared by a good many others, that the appropriate Minister to be responsible for housing is the Minister of Health——

Mr. Lipson: It all depends who is the Minister of Health.

Sir I. Albery: I am not talking for the moment about personalities but about an office. One must bear in mind that the Minister of Health is being relieved, by the creation of a Ministry of National Insurance, of a great many of his past duties. The whole history of housing, the expert staff to deal with it, past experience, were all to be found in the Ministry of Health. It would seem from happenings during the past 12 months that one is forced to the conclusion that in the development of our housing policy there have been difficulties of a serious nature. I need only refer to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who is now sitting in his place, left the Ministry of Health some time ago and at that time people in this House were asking themselves why that change was being made. I do not think we were ever given any definite information on the subject. We had to go more or less by report and rumour, and report and rumour were mainly to the effect that the Ministry of Works was encroaching upon the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health, and we arrived, rightly or wrongly, at the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith had tendered his resignation because he found he was not getting adequate facilities to carry out the necessary plans, or was being interfered with by some other Department. That was common rumour. How much of it is true, I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman, with his well-


known anxiety to render public service in any capacity during the present emergency, accepted another office from the Prime Minister, and I am quite sure he was actuated by noble motives and a completely disinterested desire to serve his country.
There is, however, something still to be said, even in war-time, for the old custom by which a Minister who occupies office and cannot obtain either the necessary co-operation from the rest of the Cabinet, or the Government of the day, or the Prime Minister of the day, and who becomes satisfied that he cannot satisfactorily carry out his functions—resigns his office, taking his place on the back-benches in front of me to resume his independence, and informing the House and the country of the circumstances which necessitated his resignation. Only in that way can the House and the country maintain that control which is desirable and necessary, and to which they are entitled.
The next thing that happened which showed that matters were not altogether satisfactory with relation to the war-time building emergency, was the departure, if I may so call it, of the Noble Lord who, until recently, has been Minister of Works. There, again, we are very much in the dark as to why he went. Two letters were exchanged, and no doubt gave complete satisfaction both to the writer and receiver. No information was forthcoming to the House or the country as to the real reason and there, again, one had to fall back on rumour and report. It is possible that the Noble Lord had not been able to provide certain things which he said he could provide and that that led ultimately to his resignation. I do not know, and I am sorry if I am putting forward suggestions which may not be accurate, but we are not left in a position to do otherwise. I say all this mainly in the hope that the Government will to-day seize the opportunity to give some explanation to the House of these past happenings, an explanation to which we are entitled and which have a considerable bearing on what should be done in the future.
To go back to my first suggestion—with which some may not agree—I am still of the opinion that the proper authority for housing in this country is the Ministry of Health. Allowing for the fact

that the duties will be more onerous than before, I think there might be a good deal to be said for the Minister of Health being a member of the War Cabinet, with direct access, therefore, to that Cabinet on this very important matter. My right hon. and learned Friend has a very able Parliamentary Secretary to take over a lot of his work, and if another Parliamentary Secretary was needed to assist him I see no reason why one should not be provided. Do Members of the House realise how many Ministers are involved in housing? I have divided them into two groups. The first I call the planning Ministers, for instance, those who have responsibility and interest in directing the nature of our housing. Under that heading there is, first, the Minister of Reconstruction, then there are the Minister of Town and Country Planning, the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture. That is a total of five who are interested in planning. The second group, whom I put under the heading of the Supply Ministers, consists of the Minister of Works, the Minister of Labour, the President of the Board of Trade, and I think that to those there should be added the Minister of Transport, whose assistance will be needed in many directions. Altogether, therefore, there are nine Ministers who have an important share in the production of houses, and I defy any Member of this House to say that he can nominate any one Minister who is really carrying definite responsibility at the moment for tackling this problem.
I ask Members to ask themselves how one can possibly hope that a difficult problem of this kind can be grappled with on those lines. The problem is similar to the one which the Prime Minister had to grapple with in waging this war. He knew quite well that the only way to grapple with it was to take over-riding control himself, which he has done with such great success, and I am convinced that this housing problem must be tackled in the same manner by a Minister in the War Cabinet who has over-riding control and responsibility, and who will be responsible both to that Cabinet and to this House for results. Further, if he is not provided with those things which are necessary to carry out his task I hope he will resign and take his place on the back benches as an independent Member and tell the House of Commons and the coun-


try why he has resigned. Although I said that the Minister should have this over-riding responsibility there is, of course, a good deal of difference between the solving of the temporary emergency housing problem and the long-term problem. I believe that in collaboration with the Minister of Health, and under his over-riding supervision, the Minister of Works is the right person to tackle the emergency problem which, as I have said, is quite different from the long-term problem, and that every facility should be given to him to enable him to do his job. But temporary houses should not be allowed in any way to interfere with, or delay, permanent houses. In my view, temporary houses should not be put upon sites which are intended for permanent houses.
As regards priorities, there should not be any great degree of competition. If permanent housing is to go along more or less on the old established lines, employing skilled building workers, temporary housing is something on which materials and workers not ordinarily in the building industry must be employed. Therefore, the question of priority should not arise, and so far as possible hindrance and interference between the two should be avoided.
On the question of the shortage of workers in the building industry, there is one point to which I want to draw attention. Members of this House are constantly pleading for men to be brought back from the Forces to reinforce the building industry. That ought to be done, in so far as it can be done, but I have reason to believe that there is another source which, to a large extent, has been overlooked, although not, perhaps, by people like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works. I am informed that there is a large number of building operatives who, during the war, have gone into other trades and forms of work to which, admittedly, they have been attracted, very often, by high wages, and it is probable that these men could be put back into their original trades in the building industry. The other day the Minister of Health made a speech, in which he said:
The Government's programme consists of three parts—the repair of war damage, the provision of temporary bungalows of various types and the building of permanent houses.

There is another form of action, a very important one, which I think, ought to have been added. We are going to be acutely short of houses, and it will be a desperately serious matter if the war ends at an early date. I believe that a great deal of housing accommodation can be provided purely as a temporary measure, by the careful investigation of all unoccupied housing properties in London with a view to different forms of conversion. There ought to be economical conversion on a temporary basis. There are buildings in London—I know streets of them—which, within a short period, will be pulled down and rebuilt. We cannot afford to-day to pull down anything which is reasonably habitable, or can be made so by the expenditure of a moderate amount of money. Arrangements ought to be made to make these places into temporary flats, or even groups of rooms. It would be better than nothing, and private enterprise should be encouraged to convert the better classes of property into flats and small dwellings for the better situated part of our population. I attach considerable importance to that because in housing everybody has been downgraded.

Sir Alfred Beit: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Commissioners of Crown Lands are the biggest offenders in this respect, in view of the fact that their leases do not permit of any such conversion of houses into flats?

Sir I. Albery: There may be many difficulties of that kind but this is an acute emergency, as has been mentioned by nearly every speaker. I am not at all satisfied that, if it is properly tackled, we cannot do it a great deal better than has been suggested. The situation is not very dissimilar from that which arose in the shipping industry. Ships were torpedoed and we had to have new ones. If we had tried to provide new ships on the same basis that we are now proposing to supply houses, we should have been starved out long ago. We have to tackle the problem on the same basis as the liberty ships were tackled. We have to say what is needed and steps have to be taken to provide it. We have not got to sit down and be satisfied with someone who says, "I can provide 100,000 houses this year and 200,000 the next." If it is not enough


it will not do. We have to get down to it and get a larger number. We have done more difficult things than that. There is no comparison between the difficulties that existed after the last war and the acute crisis which will exist after this. Last time it was not handled too well in the early stages but this time it has to be dealt with.

2.17 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: I think this problem resolves itself into the consideration of two items, namely, men and material. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) has put his finger on one of the weakest spots, as far as the provision of men is concerned. What he has said is perfectly true to my knowledge. There are people whose ordinary businesses were brought to a standstill at the outbreak of the war, and there are many joiners and bricklayers and others who are capable of performing any task in the building trade. I know some works which have nearly a third more bricklayers to-day than they had previous to the war and, if E.P.T. was not helping them to pay the wages, a large number of them would not be there much longer. If the Ministry is serious about it it can easily get the figures of the skilled men who were employed previous to the war, and the number now employed, and you will find that there is an enormous number of skilled men doing unskilled work. For that reason I cannot see the tremendous difficulty that is said to exist. I am forced to the conclusion that the problem of the temporary and the permanent house is only the casing—the outside fabric. You are going to have the same standard fittings in the one as in the other. The more one thinks about the problem, the less there seems to be in the case for the temporary as against the permanent house, and the more heavily I come down on the side of the permanent house.
In my borough the number of houses that we require to catch up to the present demand is something less than 1,000. In the five years onwards from 1934 the Council built about 12 and private enterprise 605. In 1935 the Council built 42 and builders 917, in 1936 Council 82, builders 607, in 1937 Council 68, builders 690, in 1938, the Council 50, and private builders 722 and in 1939, Council 22, and

builders 587. That proves conclusively that, if the whole of the building operatives in the town were released from the Army or from other occupations, the problem could easily be solved by building permanent instead of temporary houses. The building trade, if it was properly and thoroughly organised, could solve the difficulty without us having some of these abortions called temporary houses. I do not know what steps the Government have taken to ascertain the number of men but in my borough we could solve it if they would let us have the men and the material.
If it was possible to obtain bricks and labour, the best house we could build is the old fashioned brick house, but I do not think the Government are encouraging the manufacture of bricks. I understand that there are huge stocks in various parts of the country but in the district that I know very well half the brick yards are derelict and no attempt has been made to open them. I do not think some of them are very keen on doing it. While they can get 3s. per thousand for doing nothing they seem to be quite content to rest on their laurels. One of the first steps the Government should take is to see that we begin the manufacture of the raw materials and that the brick yards are in the districts where houses are required. I am in favour of the traditional type of house. What is the difficulty about building it? Is it shortage of material? [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."] Every one says that but no one attempts to give any real facts about it. I have heard speech after speech by people who make that bald statement without giving the facts.

Mr. Lipson: Has the hon. Member made any estimate as to the number of permanent houses of the traditional type that could be built by the industry in a year and the number of temporary houses?

Mr. Quibell: No, I have not, and I doubt very much if there is any Member of the House who could. If you want to put in concrete floors, whether up or down, you will meet with determined opposition from those who will have to inhabit the houses. For that reason the traditional type of floor and the traditional roof should be used. I do not think there would be the slightest difficulty in regard to timber. I have heard it said that there will be an abundance of


shipping, and there is an abundance of timber. There is as much timber to-day, except for what is being used during the war, as there was five years ago. We have tremendous resources in Canada. For five years previous to the war we imported 350,000 standards a year. It is only a question of getting it here. Nothing looks better than a timber roof with good slates or tiles. There is any amount of timber in the world and any amount of slates in North Wales. There is nothing better to put on a roof than good Penryn slates. We have tiles, clay, every raw material except timber, and the timber can be imported if only we have the shipping available. The Government should think in terms of the traditional type of house as well as the temporary house. I went with the mover of the Amendment to Northolt, and I agree with him that there are some very good houses, both temporary and permanent, and both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary deserve credit for getting a move on and doing something more than talking. Those who do nothing make no mistakes. If some of us had been in their position we might not have done quite so well as they did.
One of the greatest weaknesses that have experienced in the building trade is that it is the important things which are least attended to. I know places where a bit of felt has been used as a damp course. You might as well have put in a bit of brown paper. There should be a standard type of damp course. You can see the damp three feet up the wall. That is due to the fact that the by-laws in respect of damp courses are not sufficiently strong. They should provide that efficient damp courses should be put in. I have seen houses where tar and sand have been mixed together and spread over a wall and called a damp course. The by-laws allowed that to be done. The result is that the owner has a damp house. Nothing is done about it. I urged in the House To years ago that something should be done to put in a damp course of bitumen, slate, or pluvex, or something of that kind. That would mean substantial and permanent damp courses and it would stop damp, unhealthy houses being erected.
I would like to make another practical suggestion. I know of a fairly big

town where the building inspection is looked upon merely as a side-line to be carried out when there is nothing else to be done. I know of a case where one man went into a house and another went into the house next door—that one was me—and they put their hands up the chimneys and shook hands with each other. They were able to do that because the wall between the chimneys was left out so as to save a few bricks. If there was proper supervision that kind of thing could not happen. The officials in that district looked upon building inspection as a thing of no importance. It is very important to the man who buys a house, and we can imagine the kind of houses built by a council if their officials have such a mentality. It is small wonder that there is a great deal of criticism rightly levelled at the type of houses built under such men. I hope the Government will insist that in towns of a certain size an official is appointed whose duty will be to act as building inspector, so that there will be adequate inspection.
The question of subsidies also ought to he considered. I do not know whether it is in the minds of the Government to subsidise private enterprise. I remember when they last did it and gave a subsidy of £150, a fellow put in a little bit of canvas on the floor and some curtains at the window and sold a subsidised house for twice the amount of money it cost. The men I have mentioned, some of whom have small estates provided with roads, sewers, gas and water mains, or councils which have such estates, should be given facilities to build so that they can help solve this problem. There is no problem which is more likely to cause social unrest.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Would the hon. Gentleman be in favour of giving subsidies both to private enterprise and local authorities?

Mr. Quibell: I do not mind in the least. We want houses, and both local authorities and private enterprise ought to be given the chance to provide them. It is the provision of houses that matters. My own council lent as much as £90,000 under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to help soldiers purchase their own houses. I cannot see any evil in a man owning his own house. It is desirable that he should, and there are not many Members who do not carry that out in practice themselves. Cheap money should be pu


at the disposal of the local authorities, or the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act should be revived, or arrangements should be made with the building societies, or assistance should be given direct to purchasers. What matters with me it that we should get houses. As far as the soldier is concerned, he has fought for the Empire and for England, and it is our duty to harness all the resources of the building trade in order to see that he has a home when he returns.

2.36 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Sandys): I do not think anybody will try and minimise the seriousness or the gravity of the housing situation. All over the country to-day friends, relations and, in many cases, strangers are being obliged to share homes. Almost everywhere there is a really acute shortage of accommodation of every kind. That is the situation to-day when great numbers of our people in the Fighting Services are still overseas and many others are living in camps and barracks in this country. Some time during the course of the next 12 months we hope and expect that many of these Service men and women will be returning home, and it is clear that, unless we take vigorous, drastic and, if need be, unorthodox action, many of those returning troops will for a long time to come have to go on facing the bleak prospect of a homeless homecoming. It seems to me that our duty, the duty of all of us, for we are all in this together, stands out perfectly clear. We have got to produce the largest number of dwellings of a reasonable standard, if not in time at any rate in the shortest possible time; because in the face of this situation, I do not think we can "kid ourselves" that we can solve this problem, with all the arrears we have to make up, in time.
In this gigantic enterprise all our resources of energy and ingenuity will have to be harnessed to the task. Above all, it is imperative that the Government, on the one hand, and the building and civil engineering industries, on the other, should work together in close, intimate and effective partnership. In this the Ministry of Works has a very special responsibility. Here I am particularly fortunate in being able to turn for advice and help to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who for many long

years has played so large a part in this great industry. The Government are planning to provide homes for our people by three methods: first, by the immediate repair of existing houses which have been damaged by the enemy; secondly, by a long-term building programme extending over many years; and, thirdly, by the rapid construction of temporary dwellings to help bridge the gap until the long-term programme gets under way.
The most immediate and pressing task is certainly the repair of the vast number of London homes which have been damaged by bombs during the last few months. Practically every speaker has addressed himself to that problem, and it is evident that there is still widespread criticism—at any rate, among those who have spoken. Criticism is not always well-informed, but I am not proposing to do more to-day than to try and set before the House the problem as I see it, the magnitude of the task, and the extent of progress which has already been attained. An unfortunate passage in a speech which I made a few months ago has been referred to. In reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who asks me to prophesy exactly when these repairs will be completed, I would say that I have learnt my lesson.
In a Debate at the end of October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health explained the responsibilities of the various Government Departments in relation to the repair of bomb damage in London, and I do not propose to repeat again what he said then. I should have thought that it was perfectly obvious that in a complicated matter of this kind, with a highly developed Government machine, it is inevitable that a considerable number of Departments must be concerned. The idea that you can set up a dictator to deal with every new subject that comes along is an attractive one. If we had a dictator to deal with bomb damage in London, obviously we could get the job done very much quicker, but other jobs would suffer. The first thing a dictator would do would be to get a lot of builders out of the Army, and pull others out of the munition industries. He would get the job done, but many other things would be severely interfered with. That is why there must be some sense of proportion when considering the idea of a dictator. The mover of the


Amendment said that we should have a dictator who could override his colleagues in the Cabinet in this matter.

Captain Cobb: What I said was that he should have authority over certain of his colleagues. Obviously, he would have to be subject to the Prime Minister.

Sir I. Albery: If we are not to have a dictator, can we have an architect?

Mr. Sandys: That is a more modest request. In order to make sure that this task of dealing with bomb-damage repair in London is undertaken as a unified operation, it has been decided to place upon a single Minister, namely, the Minister of Works, responsibility for concerting the action of all Government Departments concerned, and of answering to this House for the whole question. I hope that that will go some little way towards assuring the House that Government Departments are not all fighting one another all the time.

Mr. Bossom: Is that to be for all housing or only for bomb damage?

Mr. Sandys: I said specifically for bomb-damage repair and for the problems which are connected with it, such as the provision of emergency winter accommodation. The repair of bomb damage is being tackled in four stages. The first is to provide rough-and-ready protection from the weather as quickly as possible. This stage is, I am advised, completed within about three days of the incident occurring. The second stage is to restore a tolerable standard of comfort to those large numbers of houses which, though damaged, are for the most part still habitable and in fact inhabited. The third stage is to repair the more seriously damaged houses which, though now unfit to live in, are none the less worth while mending. The fourth and last stage is to finish off the repairs, to carry out inside decorations and to replace any inferior substitute materials which may have been used during the emergency.

Mr. Bellenger: Are decorations being done to occupied bomb-damaged houses?

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue, I was going to say that this final stage cannot, of course, be completed until after the end of the

German war. It is these second stage repairs in London which are now engaging our main attention. At the end of September, when the winter programme of repairs was started, there were more than 700,000 damaged houses in this category. On grounds of security it would be unwise to publish particulars of bomb damage which has occurred in recent weeks, but that figure has, of course, increased. The total cost of all repairs which are now being undertaken is likely to be over £35,000,000. I mention this figure not because we are concerned so much with the cost as because it will give a very fair indication of the magnitude of the problem.
The first necessity is, of course, to make the roofs watertight. This essential work is going ahead well. In 53 boroughs out of 95, more than nine-tenths of the roofs of all inhabited houses have now been made fully watertight. I am assured that, apart from fresh damage, there should by Christmas be relatively few occupied dwellings whose roofs have not been repaired. As regards other repairs, we aim at mending or replacing partitions, doors and ceilings in essential rooms and at replacing a proportion of the windows. That is the sort of standard at which we are aiming. Until all houses have been brought up to this minimum standard, there can, of course, be no question of carrying out internal decorations. I think that answers the hon. Member's point. However, we have been examining the possibility of issuing to all householders paint or distemper and brushes, so that they can themselves, if they wish, make their homes a little more cheerful. It is not much, but it may help in a small way.
The extent and nature of the work to be done varies very much from house to house and from borough to borough so that it is really very difficult to measure precisely the progress which has been made. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham will appreciate the difficulty of measuring up a job like this, particularly while it is still under way. More than 200,000 of the houses in this category have by now received complete "Stage 2 repairs," as we call it. In addition, a very considerable number, for which figures are not available, are in varying stages of repair. During the last six weeks there has undoubtedly been a marked improvement in the rhythm and


speed of this work. This improvement is, in my view, due in very large measure to the unflagging exertions of officers of the local authorities and of the Ministries of Health, Labour and Works, under the able and energetic leadership—I am glad his work was commended in the course of the Debate—of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. I have been closely examining with him and others the various possible ways of further speeding up the progress of these repairs.
I must say that my first conclusion is that there is no short cut. There is no easy way out. We are not likely to achieve results by sweeping changes in organisation. The repair of London is not, as it at first may appear to be, single task. It is made up of countless thousands of small jobs, each slightly different from the others. Progress can be made only by tackling one by one the detailed difficulties which, in a variety of small ways, may give rise to delays, overlapping, misunderstanding or waste. In itself, the cure of any one of these troubles may not have a very appreciable result, but taken together, the cumulative effect may turn out to be quite considerable.
The hon. Member for Peckham asked about the machinery at the centre for handling and planning this work. It has seemed to us desirable that there should be some kind of central clearing house which could deal expeditiously with all or any of these minor or major problems, as they arise. For this purpose, we have set up an inter-departmental committee, of which I am the Chairman, and which is known as the London Repairs Executive. Its members include Sir Malcolm Eve, who is acting as my deputy over the whole of this sphere, together with senior officials of all the Government Departments principally concerned. This Committee is being provided with a statistical branch and will maintain direct contact with the local authorities through a number of experienced liaison officers who have been specially trained now for this work. This should prove a most valuable piece of machinery.
This repair work is of course consuming vast quantities of building materials. While there may sometimes be shortages of certain materials there are in all cases, I am glad to say, sufficient supplies of at any rate serviceable substitutes. There-

fore there is no reason why the work should be held up on account of materials. The question of distribution is a more difficult one and I am at the moment looking into it to see whether we cannot distribute the materials more efficiently in certain ways There have of course been serious shortages of some types of materials, the outstanding case having been plaster-board. London and Bomb-Alley repairs have been consuming, or would have consumed if they had been able to, more than the total output of that material for the whole country. The output of plaster-board was stepped up but unfortunately we have had a very serious set-back in that unhappy bomb-dump explosion near Burton-on-Trent, which destroyed one of the principal sources of supply, so that we are rather back where we were a few weeks ago. However, strenuous efforts are being made to find alternative sources of production. In the same way, glass has been a difficulty, but we are now in a position to put about 50 per cent. clear glass and 50 per cent. opaque glass in a proportion of windows in essential rooms. With the assistance of the new mobile glazing organisation I think that that side of the matter is going much better.
There has been mention of the labour on this jab. The labour force engaged on London repairs was 59,000 at the beginning of September. Since then, it has been progressively increased and now stands at nearly 130,000. That is more than one-third of the building labour of the whole country, a formidable force. About 45,000 of those men have been brought from all parts of the country, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I would say to hon. Members that it is no good slanging the workmen who are on this job. There is always a small proportion of men slacking on any job. I am satisfied that there is not more slacking here than you would expect on a job of this kind. Very often when the workmen appear to be slacking there is some good reason. It is a thoroughly awkward job. It is inevitable that there should at times be hold-ups of one kind or another. We have hold-ups even in our great factories where the whole process moves along a conveyor belt. Imagine all these little odd jobs all over the place; it is inevitable that there must be a considerable amount of delays and wasted effort.
I have very great pleasure indeed in informing the House that a few days ago General Eisenhower placed at our disposal some 3,000 American sappers to help us on repairs in London. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to express their warm thanks for this very welcome aid and for the feelings of friendship and sympathy which have inspired it. As a result of the Acts of 1939 and 1941 the heavy burden of bomb-damage repairs has fallen very largely on local authorities. I rather doubt whether many, if any, of us, when we passed those Acts, realised what a terrific burden was going to be placed on a comparatively few local authorities, as a result of the concentrated attack of the enemy upon the Metropolitan area. Many boroughs have risen wonderfully to the occasion and have successfully adapted their organisation to meet this new and difficult situation.
I would like the House to know that among the most successful local authorities are some whose areas were most severely bombed. Taking all the difficulties into account, I think it is fair to say that the average rate of progress, of local authorities as a whole, has been satisfactory. The work of many has been quite splendid. There are, however—and I must say it—a small number who are lagging behind the others, and I do not feel, in a matter of this importance, that this can be allowed to continue indefinitely. It is a responsibility that has been placed upon the local authorities, but, none the less, I do not think the central Government, or this House, can wash their hands of the matter. Naturally, we do not wish to interfere with the responsibilities of local authorities. However, in a borough where the limited resources of labour and material are being uneconomically used, and where satisfactory progress is not being made, the Government may, in the last resort, feel obliged to insist that that local authority shall employ either the Ministry of Works, or some other approved organisation, to carry out the whole, or part, of the repairs in that area. We should be most reluctant to take that course, and I hope it will not be necessary. However, in view of the pressure that has been put upon us in this House to get on with these repairs, I trust that, if it does prove unavoidable, the Government will be able to count on the approval and support of hon. Members for any reasonable action

that may be necessary to get the job done fairly and quickly.
The Government have accorded to London repairs a priority which is second only to urgent work of operational importance. Altogether, in the factory, in the office, and on the actual job, over 200,000 men and women are at present engaged directly, or indirectly, on this task, I need hardly tell the House that the Government fully realise the distress and discomfort which the people of London are enduring. Their patience and their fortitude is a constant spur to us in our work. There is certainly no complacency, and if the rate of progress is not as fast as we should like, I can assure the House it is not through want of trying. I cannot, in the scope of this Debate, give the House, and particularly the London Members who are so much interested in these matters, more detailed information, but if it should be desired, I shall be very pleased indeed to arrange for any meetings in the Committee rooms upstairs, such as have been arranged before.
I would like to turn to the question of temporary houses. There has been a good deal of criticism in this Debate, and also in the Press just recently, about the whole of the Government's temporary housing policy. It seems that it is still not fully understood why we have adopted this course. It all boils down to one thing, and that is the shortage of building labour. This has been the deciding factor coupled with the fact that other types of labour in the engineering industries will, at the end of the war with Germany, become available in limited quantities. It was the shortage of building labour which led to the adoption of the temporary factory-made dwelling. The strength of the building industry before the war was 1,000,000. It is now down to about one-third of that strength and, of course, a very large part of it is not available for work of this kind.
Thus the primary objective of my Noble Friend Lord Portal, whose inspiration and assiduous personal attention played so big a part, was to provide a house whose construction would make the absolute minimum demand on building labour. The other consideration was to try and bring the great engineering industries into the housing programme, and to let them play their part in meet-


ing the housing shortage. It was not possible to convert the men and women in munition factories into plumbers and bricklayers. The only way round the difficulty was to re-design the houses so as to make them suitable for the labour available to produce them. By the adoption of these novel methods, which represented nothing less than a revolution in British building design, we are going to be able, with the same force of building labour, to produce nearly three times as many houses as would otherwise be possible. Jigs and tools needed for the manufacture of this pressed-steel house and the internal fitments are now in course of preparation. I must, however, make it quite clear—and I would like there to be no misunderstanding about this—that the actual production cannot be proceeded with until the necessary labour and manufacturing capacity are released at the end of the war in Europe.

Sir Percy Harris: Am I to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that we shall not even start to produce before the end of the war in Europe?

Mr. Sandys: No, not the pressed steel bungalow.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask the Minister whether that means that none of the labour which is redundant, or is likely to become redundant before the end of the war, is to be used for this purpose?

Mr. Sandys: I say that it is not going to be possible to start this production until we get substantial releases of labour from the munition factories, and that cannot be until the end of the war in Europe. But I want to add that, in order to make use of a variety of other materials, it has been decided, as the House knows, to proceed with the production of other types of temporary houses.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the industrial workers, who are now queueing up at the labour exchanges, will be encouraged to transfer to factories where there is a likelihood that they will be producing after the war the skeleton, or the carcass, of the factory-built house? Are they not to be transferred before the end of the war in Europe?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know about the particular cases the hon. Member has in mind. This production has got to be planned. We cannot collect a few people, here and there, and start making houses. It has got to be done in an orderly manner. The appropriate capacity for steel presses and all the machinery necessary have got to be available. I thought it had been made clear before to-day, but, if it has not, it is just as well that I should emphasise the fact that the pressed steel bungalow, which is essentially an engineering factory job, cannot go into production until, as far as we can see at present, the end of the war in Europe.

Mr. Silkin: I would like to emphasise that this is the first time that point has been made clear to the House.

Mr. Sandys: The last thing we want is to have any misunderstanding about it. However, I was saying that that position does not apply to all the temporary bungalows. In order to use different materials, we have gone into production with other types. These do not to the same extent as the pressed steel model, need labour and capacity in the munitions factories. It will, therefore, be possible to start deliveries of these in limited numbers during the early part of the next year.
The seconder of the Amendment spoke about the Tarran house. There was a difficulty about it. Things did not go quite as originally planned. It had been thought in the first place that sufficient factory space would have been available in the firm's own factory, but on later examination it was found that they were already fully engaged with other work, and in consequence other accommodation had to be found. That led to delay, but the necessary arrangements are now being made. The drawings and designs for the Tarran house are now just completed, and I am able to tell the hon. Member that deliveries will be considerably in excess of the figures which he himself quoted. He spoke of the production of 40 houses per week starting in April. We shall begin production of Tarran houses considerably before that date.

Mr. Donald Scott: I was referring only to one factory on the North East coast, which has not even started production because the factory space cannot be found.


I was not referring to the production of Tarran houses throughout the whole country.

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. There have been delays. I have explained how they occurred. The House will I think share my view that having regard to our pressing needs one of these temporary houses in 1945, is probably worth two in 1946. We are, therefore, urgently examining the possibility of substantially swelling the flow of deliveries by one means or another during the first half of next year. With this object we are, at the moment, endeavouring to bring into the housing programme the big group of contractors who were responsible for producing in a few short months those marvellous artificial harbours now known the world over as "Mulberries." We are trying to see whether we cannot get a considerably increased output of temporary bungalows of a different type which will be suitable for production by the methods used by this group.
However, this is not merely a production problem. It may well be we could produce a largely increased number of temporary houses, though even that is not certain. But before these temporary houses can be delivered the local authorities have to clear the sites and put in the roads and sewers and other services. All this involves work and time. They may, therefore, find it very difficult indeed to accept increased deliveries at an earlier date. However, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health are explaining these possibilities to the local authorities, and I am sure the Government can count on their full and enthusiastic co-operation in our efforts to accelerate the programme.
Before leaving this subject of temporary housing, I should just like to emphasise that the Government have, from the outset, recognised that these temporary bungalows can never provide anything but a partial and transient alleviation of our housing shortage. It has been a case of necessity, and not of choice. The shortage of building labour has throughout been the governing factor. Measured in man-hours of building labour, these prefabricated houses are the most economical type of dwelling we have been able to devise. It is estimated that the adoption of these factory methods of construction

will make it possible to provide 200,000 temporary dwellings with the same number of building operatives as would otherwise have been needed to construct about 60,000 houses of standard design. The Government were thus faced with the choice either of including in its programme a proportion of temporary houses, or of foregoing during the next two critical years some 140,000 homes, each capable of accommodating a young married couple. I am sure the House will feel that in all the circumstances the right decision was made.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be dealing with the permanent housing programme, which is essentially within his province. I was asked about building materials. The future programmes of building which have been announced by the Government, whether for permanent or for temporary houses, are of course not just figures in the air. They have naturally been worked out in terms of building materials of all the necessary kinds. As for the fitments, those internal built-in fittings which were admired by one hon. Member who spoke, they are being manufactured now—or rather are on order—in quantities in excess of what will be needed for the temporary housing programme, and so will be available for many of the permanent houses as well.
As for standardisation, very considerable progress has been made. I have here, though I do not propose to read it out, a long list of the standardised components which have now been approved and which will in due course be available for use in the permanent housing programme. They will undoubtedly lead to a very great saving of production effort and of expense. In order to encourage their use the granting of licences and subsidies will, at any rate to start with, be dependent on the use of those standardised components in so far as they are available. There may be an interim period in which it will not be possible for them to be universally introduced.
The target aimed at in the Government's permanent housing programme is the very utmost that can be achieved along traditional building lines. The only possible hope, as I see it, of substantially increasing the output of permanent houses in the next few years is by the more extended application of new production methods, including prefabrication, stan-


dardisation of components and the use of new materials and techniques. There seemed to be very widespread support for this from all Members who spoke, and I was very glad to hear it——

Mr. Buchanan: What about adding to the labour force?

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Member is referring to the building labour force, it is our intention to add to it as much as, and as far as, we can, but it will still be for a long while woefully short of what we need to produce homes for our people.

Mr. Buchanan: Why?

Mr. Sandys: Because there is a war on.

Mr. Buchanan: But the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the future, when there will not be a war on. Why not add considerably to the labour force after the war? Surely the labour force in engineering has been added to considerably?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I was speaking of the possibility of getting some immediate increase in the construction of permanent houses. Even after the war, it will be quite a little while before the building industry gets into full swing again. I am convinced that the Ministry of Works, as the Government's advisers on building design, can make no greater single contribution to the solution of our housing problem than by stimulating research in this important field. Much far-sighted pioneering work has been carried out, under the personal inspiration and direction of Lord Portal. I think many hon. Members have already seen the first fruits of this work—the mover of the Amendment referred to it—in the recent housing demonstration at Northolt. It is my intention to see that this development is continued and extended. In particular, I have asked my technical advisers, in consultation with the industry—I believe the industry must be brought into all these matters as much as possible—to apply themselves to designing a small selection of prefabricated two-storey houses, using some of the methods which were so successfully employed at Northolt, and also using other methods which have been developed by some of the great local authorities.
These houses, with which I have asked them to press on in designing as quickly

as possible, must be of a permanent type, or at any rate of a type which can later be converted to permanence. They must conform fully to approved housing standards so far as size and other considerations are concerned. They must be capable of being assembled from a limited range of standardised factory-made components, and must require the minimum of building labour for their erection. If it turns out to be possible, neither I nor the Government will need any pressing to consider replacing the tail-end of the temporary bungalow programme, by some form of prefabricated permanent house. That is our hope: whether it will be realised I do not know, but those are the sort of lines on which our research will be directed in the immediate future.
The results of technical research by the Ministry of Works are, of course, made available to the industry. In this and other matters that is absolutely essential, as I have said, that the Ministry of Works and the building and civil engineering industries should work closely together. Early this week I met leading representatives of employers, operatives, architects, surveyors, and civil engineers. As a result, we decided to recast on rather different lines the form and procedure of the existing consultative machinery. I hope that this new arrangement will ensure a free and fruitful interchange of ideas between the Government and these great industries and will strengthen the basis of mutual confidence which is so essential if we are to tackle successfully the difficult problems which face us in the future. As the House may well realise, I have spoken with some diffidence about the work of a Department with which I have been associated for only a very few days. I wish to thank the House for the patience and indulgence which they have shown me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

3.26 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): In view of representations which have been made, I beg to move,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), for One hour after Six o'clock.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

Housing

Question again proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Mr. Speaker: A great number of Members wish to speak, and, even with an extension of one hour, unless speeches are kept short, many Members will not be able to get in.

3.27 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) expressed the deep anxiety which is felt in this House and in the country about the housing policy of the Government, an anxiety shared by the Prime Minister, an anxiety which has been greatly increased by the speech we have just heard. We wish the new Minister of Works well in his very difficult task. We are not going to judge him to-day. By his works will we judge him. We are glad to know that the Prime Minister himself is going to preside at times over this many-headed and top-heavy organisation which is to deal with housing in this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that we could not have a dictator looking after housing. All I can say is, after listening to his speech, I am very glad indeed that we are going to have our particular brand of dictator presiding over this Committee. The changes in machinery, so far as they go, are all to the good, but it seems to me that unless we are going to have a completely new approach to the problem we shall not get anywhere near a solution. One of the most encouraging things the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works did say was that he was prepared to use unorthodox methods. The House will support him in that. It seems to me that we are faced with very much the same sort of problem as the Government were faced with in 1940, when they had to re-equip an enormous army almost from scratch. We are faced by a similar problem of supply, which can be dealt with only on a war-time basis. It is a tremendous problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) spoke of the large number of temporary houses that will be needed. If we take the number of houses over 10 or 12 years, the need will be for something between 4,000,000 and

5,000,000 houses. If we are going to try to deal with the problem by the old traditional method of building, we cannot hope to reach that target. If we mean to get those houses we have, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to revolutionise the whole of our ideas on housing.
I would like to say a word about the immediate question of providing emergency accommodation for after the war. Of course, there are immense difficulties. There is, as has already been pointed out, an acute shortage of houses at this very moment. Families are living together, and hon. Members, I am quite sure, receive letters, as I do, from all parts of the country, from people who simply cannot get houses. Then, we shall have the Forces returning after the war and swelling the queue for houses, and, with it all, there will be a serious labour shortage. Something has been said, not in the Debate to-day, but on an earlier occasion, about the possibility of getting a certain number of houses from America. I would like to ask the Minister of Health if, when he replies, he can tell us anything about the possibility of obtaining timber houses from Sweden, particularly in view of the statement we have just had from the right hon. Gentleman. We have got to secure, somehow or other, accommodation ready for the moment when the Forces will be returning home, and therefore, I press and emphasise this point very strongly to the Minister of Health.
Parliament decided, not very enthusiastically, but, nevertheless, it decided, a short time ago, in favour of giving a trial to the Portal bungalow in a Bill which was given the Royal Assent in October. To-day we have been told by the Minister of Works that although orders for jigs and tools have been given no production of these houses is to be expected until the war in Europe is over. This is the first time that this has ever been made clear. We have been led up the garden-path to find no Portal house at the end of it. That is a very serious statement that we have heard to-day, and it completely alters the whole situation with regard to housing. I think it means that the whole problem will have to be reconsidered by the Government in the light of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made.
I would like to know how many of the non-Portal houses will be available. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were


a certain number of other types which would go into production immediately, or on the 1st April. How many of these houses of every type is it expected can be produced within the next 12 months? We are told that 40 Tarran houses will be turned out a week after April. I would ask the Minister of Health when he comes to reply to give us a more categorical statement about the plans of the Government as a result of the very serious disclosure which we have had from the Minister of Works in the Debate.
A very great deal of doubt has been expressed to-day by hon. Members in all parts of the House about the Portal bungalow and about temporary housing in general. The more we see of the temporary houses the less do we like them. I do not believe myself that we are pursuing the right policy in this matter. I would like to ask the Government to put more emphasis on permanent houses and less on temporary houses, more emphasis on prefabricated permanent houses than on prefabricated temporary houses. We all know perfectly well what are the disadvantages of the temporary house. To begin with, it is definitely sub-standard as to size and height of rooms; it is not a family house, it is only a two-bedroomed house. It takes up a lot of land, and, after the statement we have heard to-day, it has not even the advantage of being an emergency house, because it obviously takes a very long time to produce.
The Government say, "Well, do not worry about all these shortcomings. After all, it is only a temporary expedient—something to help us through a critical time—but, at the end of 10 years we shall see the last of them." Does any hon. Member really think that they will all be swept away at the end of 10 years? We know perfectly well the kind of thing that is going to happen. A local authority in an area will find itself faced, either with a shortage of houses or with a slum clearance area or with overcrowded conditions with which it has not been able to deal, and there will be the Portal houses, damp proof, sub-standard, it is true, but with their excellent kitchens and appointments they will be too good to be taken down in the circumstances. A house that will last for 10 years will last for 20 years. I believe that the temporary house has come to stay, and that we might as well face the fact and the responsibility now. We

are building a definitely sub-standard house.
What is the justification for this temporary house? The Minister of Works said to-day, so far as I understood him, that the whole justification was the saving in labour. That has been the policy behind the temporary house—to make use of factory labour in order to relieve the strain on building labour. That, obviously, will be a very important consideration when building labour will be down to below one-third of what it was at the beginning of the war. But why do we have to speak of prefabrication only in connection with the temporary house? I think that is an entirely shortsighted policy. Even to-day, a great deal of prefabrication is done, doors and windows and a great many other accessories are made in factories.
The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the Ministry of Works said that, in his judgment, there was no reason why the advantages gained by the saving of man-hours in emergency houses should not also be demonstrated in permanent houses. He spoke as the head of a Department which has been making a good many investigations into this matter, and that is his conclusion. It is perfectly obvious that the whole outlook has changed in recent months. A great deal of research and experiment has been undertaken by the Ministry of Works, and credit should be given to them for their initiative in that and in many other respects. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) challenged the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) as to the difference in time taken in the building of a Portal house and a permanent house, and I understood the Minister of Works to say that you could produce three times as many houses with the same labour.

Mr. Sandys: Building labour.

Miss Lloyd George: Yes, of course, building labour. How does the temporary house compare with the permanent house in this matter? Lord Portal said the other day that the house or flat made of traditional building material could be erected in 900 man-hours as against 2,200 man-hours by normal methods. I believe that the Portal bungalow takes between 500 and 600 man-hours.
That is a very great advance. It is a very remarkable thing that you can produce the permanent house now with that labour in that time, and there are a great many housing experts who believe that that lag in time can be greatly reduced by further experiment. The fact is that the real delay in producing the houses is in the making of roads, the laying of drains and the laying on of water supplies, and the securing of sites. All these conditions apply exactly the same to temporary as to permanent houses. It certainly is not a matter of expense as to whether we should choose the permanent or temporary house. The difference, as one hon. Member pointed out, was that the Portal house costs something in the neighbourhood of £600 and the No. 7 house, which was demonstrated at Northolt, costs about £750. The advantages of building a house which will last for 20 or 30 more years and a temporary house which is meant only to last for 10 years make it well worth paying the difference between the £750 and the £600, and the sinking fund is less. The temporary house is one of the most expensive proposals in money, material and land that can possiby be undertaken.
I agree with hon. Members who said that it would be far better to have one man in charge of the housing policy in this country. The machinery at present is cumbersome. When we want swift action, we shall have only a division of responsibility and of powers, a sort of general passing of the buck. But important as I think it is to have one man responsible for housing, it is far more important—and particularly after the disastrous statement that we have had to-day about temporary houses—that we should have, at the same time, a sound and imaginative housing policy and that we should be confident at least that we are proceeding on the right lines.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Bossom: In a Debate of this nature in which there has been such a tremendous amount said upon a special subject it is rather difficult to say anything new, but the one thing that stands out right through this Debate, and indeed through all the housing Debates, now is that we need more houses and at tremendous speed. There is no question about that. It is the worry which prevails

everywhere, though how we are actually to get this speed is a matter upon which very few hon. Members have touched. We all know that we have not the building operatives in sufficient numbers to provide us with the houses in the normal way. Therefore does it not mean that we must appeal to science and make use of it in every way in order to get the greatest quantity production on a scale which has never been attempted in this country before? We shall also not only have to make use of labour which in the past has only been used for building, we shall have to use all the building labour available from all sources. We shall have to bring forth operatives who have moved to other industries and men from the Services and also use other labour and possibly woman labour to help to do this job. We cannot possibly succeed with the programme without doing this. We also have to eliminate all bottle-necks and the causes of waste of time experienced in the past. They do exist and they can be eliminated.
The entire House will agree with me when I say that we wish the new Minister of Works the greatest success. The importance of his task cannot be exaggerated. We have not another peace-time problem that will compare in importance with housing, and so the more success he has, the more pleased the House will be. But will the present arrangements give the best results? That is an open question. We need houses quicker and better and cheaper. Every type of house of a temporary kind and some houses of the permanent type, too, have been criticised. This is to be expected. I believe we can overcome this if we get the very best scientific knowledge and research and apply it to the use of both old and new materials and to the existing procedures and practices and the law. I go back again on the old subject on which I asked so many questions of the Minister of Health. The building laws which are not up to date and not compatible with the use of the new materials should at once be revised and made to conform with the materials we have to adopt. There are new details of plumbing. I saw them when in the United States and they arc much in advance of anything that I have seen here at home. There are systems of heating, and insula-


tions dealing with heat and cold and sound. There is the question of damp-proofing to which the hon. Member opposite alluded just now. Our systems of damp-proofing should be investigated and improved, also current methods of fire-proofing could be looked into with advantage. But to get all this knowledge means much and expensive research.
I asked a Question this morning and received an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister to the effect that in a year pre-war we spent about £69,000 on research, and I inquired how this was divided between the public and private purse. The facts are that £20,000 of that sum was provided by the Government and the remainder by individual firms needing some special inquiry in the industry. The work was done at Watford Building Research Station with the result that the information deduced concerning the research in question was often passed on direct to the parties who had paid for it; it was not given around to all interested in the country. To get the full value we should spread this information all over the country so that all interested can have the advantage of our research work. No experienced group of industrialists would ever attempt such a huge programme without establishing a most complete and competent research and investigation bureau. The nation cannot possibly carry out this housing programme for the next 10 years for less than £2,600,000,000. This I am convinced is the lowest price at which we could get it completed, calculating £650 a house, and 4,000,000 houses for both the public authorities and private builders combined. It is recognised we cannot succeed by sticking to the old processes. There are not enough trained men available to do it. We must use new methods and it is upon these that we must apply our research.
We must pursue prefabrication in all its forms and we must adopt standardisation on a scale we have not hitherto attempted. All fixtures and details should be interchangeable and there should be the fullest modulization. This new scientific development has not been mentioned in the Debate. This science consists of making every dimension inside a house the multiple of a fixed dimension.

America, under Government guidance, has now adopted four inches for this purpose, that is the size of all rooms, height, length, and breadth, the distance between windows, the size of piers, the size of windows, doors, openings, in fact everything, with the result that it means a much accelerated speed in erection of all buildings so treated. I would not recommend that we adopt the 4-inch module. We could take, for instance, 3 inches, one of the dimensions of our common brick, which is 9 inches and 4½ inches by 3 inches, and by so applying three inches as our basis we could do away with most of our cutting and patching, truly an important saving in time and money. I was on a committee a little time ago and we had testimony that in England we add to all our costs something like 12 per cent. on each brick work contract due to this cutting and patching through the use of these irregular dimensions. Then again on the question of building construction mechanisation we are much behind some other countries, which have carried research much further than we have. American contractors, for example, use the utmost mechanisation wherever possible. In California it appeared almost like shooting nails into the side of a wooden house and not hammering them. That does not seem very much in itself but the saving of time is remarkable.
Then the electric-mechanical hand-power tools can be used to do the work infinitely more extensively than we do to-day. One recently saw a man do the work of three with such a tool—three worked by hand and the one man with his electric hand-power tool kept pace with them easily. We must introduce tools of that nature into Great Britain much more extensively if we are to begin to get our work done at anything like the speed and price absolutely necessary to enable our huge housing drive to get under way. To get the most advantage research work must be continuous and not spasmodic. A remark was made by an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House about how much more speedily these houses could be built. Well, due to these mechanised efforts, standardisation, etc., houses of an exactly similar type to ours are being built in two-thirds of the time in other countries and they are better equipped with labour-saving devices, heat, cold and sound insulation as well,


all in a way we have not attempted. By these modern advantages they are able to pay four times the amount per hour to the operative that we pay, and yet the cost of the finished house is only one and a half to one and three-quarters of the price we have to pay, and this only in housing; in industrial work, while still paying four times the hourly rate, the cubic cost of the finished building is just about the same. Surely, we ought to learn from those facts. These advantageous processes exist, are known elsewhere, so why not take advantage of them?
Our emergency houses and our Northolt houses are the result of much research, and are a very good result, too, but they are only prototypes. Like the prototypes of the planes and tanks, I believe they can be much improved by further investigation. We have made a good start, but we must not allow ourselves to be satisfied with what we have done. Also, all the information which is obtained from research and wide-range investigation must be made available to all the public and private authorities alike. We do not do this now. A number of our important universities are doing some most valuable research work but often no one knows anything about it unless a special application is made to the individual university in question. All such information should be gathered together by some central body, preferably the Ministry of Works, and then broadcast. It should be issued to the technical papers and also to the daily papers; there should be public lectures so as to let the public know about the possibilities as well as the technical people, and then the public will demand the use of what they know exists. If we are to follow up our building research work, it must be done on a much larger scale than it is possible to obtain by an expenditure of £20,000 a year—£1,000,000 or more would be desirable, for we are far behind—and it would be one of our best investments. By it we can save a tremendous amount of time and money. If we spend as much as £1,000,000 a year, I believe we can easily save on our total annual building bill in post-war years, once we get into full swing, anything up to £50,000 a year by cutting out the needless waste and speeding-up results.
There is another procedure I want to add to research. When we have done all the research, we should time-study that

result and its application. I am sorry the Minister of Works is not here, because when he was in the Ministry of Supply he had a body of time-study experts, who looked after the filling factories, and it is no secret to-day that when those original filling factories were designed, they were designed for three shifts a day but, by having these time-study experts examine the work in detail, the factories did all the work in two shifts a day and produced more than the three shifts a day contemplated originally. We can do the same thing with our building industry; it has always been sheltered and never gained by competition as have other trades. No one ever attempted seriously in this country properly to time-study the industry, either a public or private authority. There was an attempt made at Watford which I watched, but it was of little or no value—a lot of young girls and boys trying to take down a few notes when they actually did not fully understand the intricacies of the industry they were trying to examine.

Mr. Bellenger: Architectural students.

Mr. Bossom: We want the highest skilled experts for such a task in order to obtain valuable results, and the Government have done it in the Ministry of Supply. There are dozens of instances where it has been done with great advantage. The improvement in time, quality, and cost would, I am convinced, be well worth while if they could also apply in our housing work. We must make every effort we can in research and then time-study this and afterwards time-study the actual work in the construction of the building when that is being built.
There is one other point, and that is the question of building permits. We are, I am afraid, grotesquely out of line with the rest of the world in this regard. I have said this before in the House, but I am not sure if my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health agrees with me, and I feel he does not see eye-to-eye with me in this, due to his answers to my many questions. Really we are not primitive, we are antediluvian in this matter. Our building permit system has grown up without any plan, system, or direction. It would almost seem that every Department that wants to have something to say about a building before it can be built can do so with remarkable results. I have taken the trouble to investigate


how long it took to get a permit for a big building operation, whether a housing estate or a large building in our big cities in Great Britain previous to the war. I hope the Minister of Health will alter this condition when the war is over. I have found from several members of the Royal Institute of British Architects that the average time taken to get such plans and schemes approved was between six months and a year. It was announced in this House that when the rural cottages were being planned, no less than seven Ministers had a finger at this approving.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): That was in war-time.

Mr. Bossom: It is happening at the present moment. I know of one case of a private individual who had a good small house which had no bathroom, w.c. or range. On the 5th of June this year an application was made to go ahead with these. Three different authorities gave permission, but on the 20th November, the last authority said "No." The proposed work would have made the place into a usable house; it took five months for the authorities to decide it could not be done. It is not desirable that such a condition should be allowed to continue when the war is over. I asked the Minister a question about it, whether he realised that other countries are doing this same work over which we take six months or a year in six weeks. He replied, and I think he said what he did by accident and did not really mean it, for what he said was:
I do not think much of the suggestion that the same work could be done in six weeks under present conditions. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 2124.]
I have taken the trouble to check that and I could give my right hon. and learned Friend a list of towns where it is so done. In Scotland, the Dean of Guild do the permitting (approving) much more quickly than in England. In New York, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Washington, Dallas and New Orleans they give full permission in six weeks or less. If the Minister would look into it, he would be able to give us the advantage of his investigation. He may not be interested in this criticism of the time we take to do these things, or he may not think much of the suggestion, but if he would inquire of the Building Industries National Council, the Royal In-

stitute of British Architects, the Federation of Building Trades Employers, the Federation of Building Trades Operatives, or any responsible building owners' association, he would, I believe, be almost disturbed by how they feel about this unnecessary waste of time.

Mr. McEntee: And the many local authorities.

Mr. Bossom: It is a purely practical suggestion to cut out a waste of time which we do not need to have.
I do not want to delay the House, because there are very many who want to speak, but I feel there are most important things before us. We must speed up in getting the houses ready and the way to do it, I think, is to cut out waste if we can and make all the investigations that are essential. As I have just said, if we do enough investigation and improve our system of building, as it is capable of being improved, we can save not only time but in our total annual building expense covering all types of building I sincerely believe we shall be able to save up to 50,000 a year once we are well under way again. I have figured it out fairly closely and I do not think this can be fairly disputed. That is quite a lot of money, and we cannot afford to waste it. I think we need one central authority to grant our permits. It is done by the Dean of Guild in Edinburgh. If they can do it there, why not in England? We know they do good work North of the Tweed, but we ought to do it South of the Thames as well. I would like to see one Minister handling the housing work certainly for the first two years and being entirely responsible. I know that some may disagree with me, but if you have a huge job to do as a great military campaign you must have one man to direct policy. For instance, we have one Eisenhower and not three Eisenhowers. I believe the nation will compel Parliament to have one Minister handling housing. The present scheme does not progress satisfactorily so why not have one Minister, right away? I wish the new Minister of Works the utmost success in his task, and I hope that he will insist on bringing the building industry into a condition in which it will be able to do the best for itself instead of being, as it is at present, in some respects much handicapped but by handicaps that can be removed.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger -: The Minister of Works did not satisfy the curiosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on why Lord Portal recently gave up the office which the right hon. Gentleman now occupies, but listening to the speeches made to-day, and estimating the temper of the House and the country, I believe that we are not so much concerned with what has happened in the past, as with what the new Minister will do in his present office. We shall judge him by results. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman did not prophesy to-day, as he did on a previous occasion in connection with another matter, but the Minister of Health has already done that for him. I understand that the Minister of Health recently said that the second-stage repairs of bomb damage would be completed by the early spring of next year. I am not a London Member, but for something like 25 years I have had practical experience, in a professional capacity, of dealing with house property in London, particularly small property, and I want to say to the Minister of Health, who has made a prophecy, and to the Minister of Works, who has not, that I and others with similar experience will be considerably surprised if those second-stage repairs are completed even by the late summer of next year.
I do not think that right hon. Gentlemen who sit in Government offices have any practical idea of the job facing the men who are, as it were, in the front line trenches. Who are they? For bomb damage repairs they are, in the main, the small jobbing builders. It is all very well to create tremendous organisations of large scale contractors to build Government ordnance factories, aerodromes and hostels—they may be able to do it efficiently, although it has taken some of them a long time to learn how to do the job—but in regard to small dwellings in London, which has one-sixth of the population of this country, and which, in relation to its size and population, is probably our most blitzed town, bomb damage can only be tackled efficiently, speedily and economically by small building contractors. I speak with knowledge of the borough of Kensington, in which I have operated professionally, as I have said, for 25 years, and I have been surprised to see, on numerous boards affixed to house property, the names of builders I have never

heard of before, certainly not in London. These firms are being given contracts or jobs by local authorities without any regard to the efficiency of their work.
I make this allegation: that some of their work is scamped. I myself have had to go back, with whatever labour I could gather, and do over again certain work which has been carried out by large building contractors. It is no good the House shutting its eyes to facts which are known by building employers, surveyors and estate agents. I do not think we realise that most of the letting of property is done in London by estate agents, who have seen for themselves the great waste of labour. I will not say that it is the fault of the men, but the fact remains that men stand idle quite frequently. So would an army, if it had not officers to look after the men and give them directions. All sorts of people are put in charge of these men, people who are called foremen and who are paid as such, yet who have never had a foreman's experience. The big contractors often place anybody in charge without regard to whether he can handle men and material, and supervise the hundred and one little jobs which go to make up the repair of a damaged house.
The money for all this is being paid by every contributor to the War Damage Insurance scheme. I would like to know how much of the £35,000,000, which the Minister has said has been expended on war damage, is not for war damage at all, and will be charged to every householder who has to pay 2s. in the £ on his Schedule A Tax for five years. I say that this work could be done more economically and more speedily if we relied on small builders. Look at the present arrangements. I do not want to deal with the long-term housing plan, but I believe that there will be serious trouble in London if the houses which already exist are not repaired and converted. Thousands of flats or suites of rooms could be got ready by the end of the war. They are not being repaired because they are unoccupied. I control, through my office, 100 flats which could be made ready within a short time at far less cost than the money which is being spent on occupied properties. I could put people into them, if they were ready, to-morrow because, like many others, I have a long waiting list.
This is the position. The amount that can be spent on any house in one year,


without a licence, is now £10. It used to be £100. For anything over that, one had to get the approval of the local authority, and then the Ministry of Works. What happens? I have put forward applications for permission to do work not greatly in excess of £10, and certainly under £50, and they have been ignored. There are stacks of applications at town halls for licences. If the Minister says that labour cannot be obtained I say that I can get it and so can many others, in a small way. There are hundreds of men who would be willing to give their spare time, perhaps at a week-end, to help to make flats ready for habitation. When I have approached my council they have said, "If you get a licence, where will you get the labour?" I have replied, "Leave that to me; that is my business not yours."
They have replied, "Oh, no, it is not. It is our business to know where you are going to get the labour." Yet the labour is controlled, because 87½ per cent. of every builder's staff now has to go into the pool, or under the direct control of the local authority for war damage repairs, and 12½ per cent. are allowed to be kept by the builder for what is called maintenance. Quite a lot of work could be done even with this very small supply of labour to put flats and houses—particularly flats, as I am speaking of London—into a habitable state. In Kensington there are scores of houses and flats which are derelict and which could be put into fairly good order for less than £50. Then people living in worse bombed flats and houses would be glad to move into them. They want to move into a place which is a little bit comfortable and they want a little distemper on the walls, but you cannot get licences for distempering walls, even for occupied houses, until after the end of the war. But I have seen workmen employed by the council doing outside painting, to window sashes, although ordinary private employers cannot get a licence to distemper the interior walls.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I am sure my hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House on any of these matters. With regard to the plea for the small builder, and the reduction of the licence from £100 to £10, while the licence was £100, plenty of people were getting third and fourth stage repairs when a large number of

bombed-out people had not got first stage repairs. As the result of reducing the licence from £100 to £10, as I stated in my last speech in the House, in a fortnight an additional 14,000 men had been put into the pool to put roofs on, and keep out wind and weather to help those who had been bombed out.

Mr. Bellenger: I quite agree. I am not denying that. My partner wrote to the Ministry and suggested this reduction to £10. What I am saying is that the local authorities should keep strict control on all building work done, but they should not prevent building work being done by the withholding of licences where someone can, by scraping the barrel, get together a few old crocks in the building trade who can do some work to unoccupied properties. At present it is practically impossible to get a licence to deal with unoccupied properties and they stand derelict, the local council refusing to requisition them because they are not in a good decorative condition or because they say they are not in a habitable state for tenants to go into. I think the local authorities are much too rigid in their application of the licensing system which has been given them by the regulation of the Ministry of Works. If only they would get the co-operation of these smaller builders it would be well worth their while and the country's while, because I am convinced that a great deal more work could be done by the small builders to put into habitable shape some of the places that are standing unoccupied and war damaged in smaller or greater degree.
On the question of materials, there is a shortage of the plaster material for plaster boards. The average small builder deals through a small builders' merchant and buys his material in comparatively small quantities. I am told, for example, by a builder whom I know very well that to get perhaps a yard of lime and hair, which is used as the ground work on laths for plaster walls, takes ten days. It is true that lime and hair are not used in the same quantity as plaster boards but, when plaster boards are put up, they have to be floated over with various forms of cement and it is very difficult even to get small quantities of this material to-day, and at any rate you have to go through a system of form filling which is almost intolerable at times. The Minister of Works says he is going


to look into this distribution question of building material. It is high time because, although the big contractors may get their supplies, the smaller contractors have great difficulty in getting theirs. There has been an improvement in the system of drawing up specifications at the town hall of the work to be done by the small builders. It used to take sometimes two or three months to get them drawn up and they were then put out to competitive tender to two or three builders, a waste which I could never understand, because to-day there is practically no competition between builders in price, especially in relation to war damage. It has been reduced to such a fine art and you have to go into so many percentages that you almost have to be a senior wrangler to give the Commission the information that they want.
Although the local authorities should be either under the Minister of Works or the Minister of Health—I do not mind which—I do not think the local authorities can do the supervising and directing of the practical men who have to do the repairs unless they have much more efficient staffs than they have at present. Many men serving on these local authorities who are supposed to be supervising practical builders know less about the work than the small builder himself. He has served his time for many years, from a boy upwards from the lowest grade, dealing with every little thing that goes to make up the repair of a house. As soon as you put up a new house you can be certain that small repairs will soon be necessary. You have to augment your staff at the local town halls. Greater facilities should be given to the smaller builders to get more labour. By all means, when they get it, make sure that it goes through the town hall on to war damage work and that none goes astray on what I may call luxury work. We cannot tolerate that, but it would be quite easy to control it. Give the small builders more men rather than directing the supplies of labour that you are bringing to London to the big contractors. I think they would be much better used and you would get a greater volume of work if they were placed under men of practical experience. Lastly, I would suggest to the Minister that he instructs the local authorities not to be so rigid when applications are made for licences to do war damage work for more than £10. If he will do these three things,

I think he will be able to improve the present situation, although I agree it is a problem which is not going to be solved in a short space of time. The Minister was right in saying that this problem is capable of no easy solution. It will be a very difficult one, but what the country feels is that there must be more vigour and energy displayed by the Government and the local authorities than has hitherto gone into dealing with this job of repairing war damaged properties in the large cities.

4.21 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish -: When I came to look at the list of Amendments on the Order Paper, I was not in any doubt as to what was incomparably the most important thing that this House has to consider on the Gracious Speech. It is housing. The next most important perhaps is the export trade. As has been said, if we do not export we shall expire, but if we do not house the people we can be sure that we shall never export, because we cannot get a discontented population to put their best efforts in anything they are called upon to do. Therefore, I attach immense importance, as I am sure the whole House does, to this great subject. I heartily agree with practically everything that was said by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and I was deeply impressed by the scientific approach to the question of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom). It is by the scientific approach that we can work towards success. We have before us a most formidable task which, if it is not handled and faced with care, firmness and vision, will create the greatest unhappiness and grave discontent which will bring to nought every effort of reconstruction in this country.
I have a few questions to ask: I would like to ask what steps are being taken now to prevent and control the widespread selling of houses at grossly inflated prices. That is one of the steps towards discontent, judging from my correspondence. Also, what steps are being taken to prevent the letting of houses at very high rents, which almost invariably results in the eviction of the tenants? They write to me on that point, and I have not been able to give them any satisfaction. The other day the Minister of Health poured cold water on to a Question of mine. It was not perhaps intended to be cold water, but it was in fact. I asked him


about the two-stage housing system. I cannot pretend to be an expert on it, but after such efforts as I have made to study it, it highly commends itself to me. I therefore ask the Minister of Health and the Minister of Works not merely to put it on one side and say it does not matter. The principle of the scheme is that the house is built on its permanent site, unlike the temporary bungalow, which spreads on to some other site and, at the end of 10 years, when the bungalow is worn out, it has to be moved before building can take place on the permanent site again. The scheme makes a strong appeal to me. A great deal has been written about it by expert people.
It is not possible to speak on housing without touching on controversy. I would like to know whether the Ministers and the Government and, I hope, the political parties in this House, have it in their minds to organise the building industry on a two-shift basis, and whether they have it in mind to combine, as far as possible, the civil engineering building industry with the normal building industry. I want to say what I feel about the two-shift system. I realise, as everybody does, that we are facing a grave situation and that, if we are not careful and if it is mishandled, we shall get into serious trouble and have civil commotion. Conditions might then arise in this country, as they are arising in European countries, in which the Government will have to take charge. Is not the situation in regard to the future of housing sufficiently serious for all parties to combine to deal with the problem? There must be sacrifice and understanding, and employers and workers must play the game.
Cannot we solve this problem by something like the two-shift system which has been such a wonderful success in the factories during the war? I know what the labour difficulties are connected with demobilization, trade union rules, and so on, but I believe that, if I addressed an audience of the building trade, I could convince them that for a year or two they would be doing a great national service by forgoing some of their rules. I cannot believe that it is impossible for painters, plasterers, tilers and bricklayers to be highly trained in a few months—I say three months. If as men became available from the Army, they were trained, it would help towards the

two-shift system. I cannot help saying from such practical knowledge as I have that it is possible to train men, I would perhaps not say in plumbing or plastering, but certainly in other things, in a few months. It would be a great test for labour and for the Government, and I urge that those who are concerned shall not merely say that the people would not stand for it. I do not believe that to be true. Unless we face this tremendous problem, and unless the industries concerned, both employers and workers, are prepared to work together, we must look forward to trouble.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Murray: I intervene in the Debate, not because I represent a bombed area or because I am a housing expert, but because I represent a division different from those that have been spoken about to-clay. My division has four townships, four urban areas and 29 villages. In those villages there are 12 mines producing coal, but only one of the mines has a pithead bath. We have two war factories which I hope will be continued after the war. If they are not, it will become like Spennymoor used to be. There is a factory some miles from Spennymoor which derives its labour from many of our men who were unemployed for years. During the August and November Recesses I made up my mind that I would look round my division. I spent my holidays touring the villages and the outposts of the division. I have no hesitation in saying that my constituents were very pleased to see me. They gave me a great welcome.
I thought that I knew the conditions under which my people lived. For 40 years I have played among them, worked with them, and attended their social functions, their religious services, their educational classes and political meetings. I honestly confess to this House that the bad conditions that I found in some of the houses occupied by people whom I represent were beyond even my comprehension. We are not suffering from a blitz by the enemy without; divisions like mine in the county of Durham are suffering from the enemy within. We have suffered for 40, 50 or 60 years from a terrible lingering disease, namely, industrialitis—cheap coal, increased profits, quick returns. For 90 per cent. of my constituents the kitchen still remains the living room, the dining


room, the washhouse, the bakehouse and even the bathroom at nights after the door has been locked and the blind has been drawn. The bath tub still steams for father when he comes home from the pit and for mother after a hard day's work in the house. Those are the conditions in the Spennymoor Division. A very few minutes' walk from where I live I can go to two-roomed houses where women still give birth to children in the kitchen and where eight in a family live in two rooms, and all sleep in one bedroom, though they are of all ages from 14 years, boys and girls, downwards to two.
I need not remind this House that the mothers in my division are bitter, dissatisfied and disappointed. They ask me point-blank, pointing to the paper hanging from the walls, to the roofs where the rain was coming in, and to the beautiful furniture that they will not set against the wall because of the dampness: "Is this what my husband is fighting for?" Honestly, my heart ached for those people. For what do the mothers in my division ask? It is a very moderate request. They simply ask for a new house, a decent place to live in. Why, the cattle even have that, and they do not ask. One night I took a walk from my home, not very far away into a colliery village. There I found a father, mother, daughter of 25, married, and with a child of two, another daughter aged 20 and a son aged 22. They were all living and sleeping in one bedroom. In another house in the same street was a family with a T.B. child attending a clinic, and they were six people, all sleeping in one bedroom. The local authority in the division has for years pressed upon the colliery companies to improve housing conditions and the street conditions. The dirty, filthy old earth-closet is still in operation. The authority has pressed for water-carriage to be installed. With what result? How have these deputations and officials of the council been met?" If you press for these things, the economic position of the colliery is such that we will be bound to close the colliery," and so we have gone on over the years, with this kind of thing.
So to-day I say, without any hesitation, that the price that has been paid is tremendous. In the division we have sorrow, suffering and death. I want to remind the House that it is from places like this, from these dens, that we breed tuberculosis, that every sanatorium in

Durham is full to-day, and has long waiting lists. How can it be otherwise? I unhesitatingly say that I would rather live in some of the modern piggeries that I have seen than in some of the houses in which my constituents are living to-day. I know that we have some bright spots and that it is not all dark. In Spennymoor there are 125 homes for aged miners, who receive free coal, free house and, in some cases, free light. They are practically the only people upon whom I called who did not want a new house. They were satisfied with their landlords. The only thing for which those tenants asked was a few more shillings on their pension in order to make ends meet. Their houses were bought and paid for out of the pockets of the miners. Some of those men had worked for 60 years in the mine without getting a penny of pension, but they were satisfied with their houses.
What is the position to-day, as I see it? In all the urban areas there are long waiting lists for houses. In the Crook and Willington urban district the first applicant on the list has been waiting for nearly 10 years for a house. They have 1,679 applications and they have 2,000 people returning from the Forces. I want to ask the House what is to be the position of those people when they return. It has many times been stated in this House that many Service people have never had a vote; I say that many of the people I visited have never had a house, never had a home of their own to live in. On many of my visits, I have found that many of them have never even seen their own child. The total number of condemned houses in the Crook and Willington area was over 848. In 1943, the Medical Officer of Health reported to the Council that he estimated the immediate future housing needs of the area to be not less than 2,500 houses.
In those depressing and terrible conditions, this Council made a very moderate request for 200 temporary bungalows. They were allocated 100, when they can can get them. I sincerely ask the Minister of Health, "What are these among so many?" It is really like feeding an elephant on monkey nuts. A similar situation operates in regard to the Spennymoor Urban Council. They think they have had a very harsh deal from the Minister of Health. They asked for an allocation of 100 temporary bungalows, but when I left home they had had no word


at all from the Ministry of Health that they were to have any bungalows at all. In fact, they were informed by the Regional Officer at Newcastle that because they were below the 20,000 population mark, they were not to be considered. What a hope for those people in the Spennymoor township where 250 families are living at the present time in houses that have been condemned by the authorities themselves. They are considered as not habitable, which is the same as being condemned. They would have been condemned had it not been for the war. There are practically 1,000 people there. Yet they have been told, I understand, that they cannot have any Portal houses.
There are 588 applications for these particular bungalows, and the council have decided not to encourage people to make applications, because there is practically no hope of providing them with a house. Yet there are people in Spennymoor living in conditions like this: I went into one place where four people, a man and woman, one son aged 18 and a boy aged eight, were all living in one room with no cooking facilities, no water facilities. Yet when the authorities get in touch with the Ministry at Newcastle they are told there are no Portal homes for them. I have received a letter this morning and I would like to know from the Minister what is the basis of allocation. They are told by the Regional Office that there is no allocation for them. Now I get a letter this morning saying: "You will be glad to know we have been allocated 50." What happens to Crook? They get half of what they ask for. Spennymoor asks for 100. They get half of what they ask for. There are 2,000 houses that need replacing in Spennymoor township. What is applicable to Spennymoor regarding overcrowding and shortage of houses is also applicable to the other areas, in one of which I live. Brandon asks for 150. When I left home they had not been allocated any.
I do not know how the basis of allocation is worked out, because in the Brandon area at the last census there were over 22,000 people. Allowing for about 2,000 soldiers being away, I cannot understand why now we are told that if we have not 20,000 inhabitants we cannot have these houses. This is my own area, the one which I live in. I estimate that there are at present about 20,000 people

at home, it may be a few less or just a few more. Why is it that Brandon is being left without any allocation? As I say, there was no allocation when I came away this week. They have asked for 150 Portal houses, or as many as the Ministry care to give them. They have the sites ready, the roads ready, sewerage in, everything ready for putting the houses down. I was in the rent collector's house on Monday night before I left. He showed me hundreds upon hundreds of applications. For 8½ years many people have been waiting for houses with no prospect of getting one. He told me that removals in the last five years have been six over the whole area.
I will not waste the time of the House, but I felt that some of these things ought to be said from the representative of a division like mine, because all that has been said to-day has, of course, and probably rightly, been really representing the problem of the bombed areas. I want this House to see that there are in constituencies like mine at least some people, decent people, who like to live in a decent house if they get the chance. I wish to remind the House that out of the applications that have been made in the various places which I have visited only 150 of these particular bungalows are to be allocated. What is that among about 75,000 people; what use is it? If some authorities are not to get an allocation why invite them to come to London and see the houses? Why waste time and public money by inviting them to London to see something in which they are not to be allowed to participate? It is just irritating those people. If some councils are left out it will create a bitternes and trouble that ought never to arise. If the numbers of these houses that are available are not sufficient to go round there is always the same way of dealing with that situation as under rationing, to let everyone have the same chance of some of the houses that are going. The men and women who want these new houses are bitter now. They know there is a shortage and their view is, Let every one of us share what there is.
The Prime Minister said in this House a very short time ago that we must tackle the housing problem as we have tackled the war. I say that we must convince the men and women outside this House that we are tackling this problem in that way. At the moment the people outside do not believe we are doing any such


thing. Men are being turned out of the factories at the present time. They are being sent to the employment exchange, which means that their spending power is reduced by pounds a week. Following on that is a lack of confidence, for as soon as you take away a man's job he loses faith. Men and women are thinking very seriously, and are saying with conviction that this House is rushing headlong into the abyss of 1918.
It has been emphasised that what is needed is speed. I am sure that if any of us were living in houses such as I have described we would want some speed, we would want to know some reason why those responsible were not getting on with the job. I want to ask the Government if they will look at this question again, the question of placing every possible man on some work of making ready the sites and sewers, turning over to house construction machinery not required for war purposes. If the machinery now installed is no use we ought to take it out and install the machinery that is required for house construction, Let us do as we have done in the war, let cost be a secondary matter; if there is an obstacle in the way let it be removed. Houses are wanted, houses we must have, and we must have them as early as possible.

4.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I do not propose to follow the obviously sincere though emotional speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) because the House knows, and the Government know, that we have all had similar experiences during the entire time we have represented our constituents in this House. The hon. Member is not the only one, I can assure him, whose cheek has blushed with shame as he has received letters from constituents, or visited them in their own homes. We have here before our tribunal, the Ministers responsible. We have had many attempts before, without any great success, to deal with this matter. Now we have a new Minister who has assumed great responsibilities, and has made commitments to this House. We can at last, with victory in sight, see that this job is tackled with a drive and energy which hitherto have been somewhat lacking. I should perhaps apologise, as a Scottish Member, for intervening in this very English Debate, but I was encouraged by the

Speaker's decision this morning that Scottish Members were not entirely prohibited from intervening to-day, even though they might get another day allotted to them later. I had to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if only to justify the warning that I gave to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health not long ago in this House. I said to him that the Government might well stand or fall by their capacity to deal with the housing problem. I was criticised for that somewhat dogmatic statement. I stand by it, and I re-affirm it. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) said to-day, if there is, unhappily, any social unrest in this country after the war the housing shortage may well be the chief contributing factor. It lies not alone with the newly-appointed Minister of Works but with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is such an urgent and sincere advocate of speedy housing, to see that as far as they are responsible, there shall be no danger of such unrest occurring.
I was glad to see that the Prime Minister had taken a hand in this matter, but I was not glad for long, because, as I listened, I found that he intended to preside only at intervals over what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) described as this awkward squad—although I do not think that that is a fair description. I think that the squad is good enough given right direction and unified direction. There are too many Ministries with fingers in this pie of housing. That is one of the greatest difficulties in getting speedy achievements. We see some of the Ministers sitting in front of us, and there are others who are not present, They participate in the preparation of plans. One Minister who is absent is responsible, or should be responsible, for the location of industry. None of the plans for rehousing can be really developed until we know something about the location of industry. The houses must be near the work of the occupiers. The whole thing is so confused that, unless the Government reconsider the matter and have one unified directing head, I cannot see any prospect of success. We all know that the Prime Minister, quite rightly, regards victory as priority No. I, but, believe me, housing is a very close runner-up. I remember reading not long ago that much-mentioned Report of Sir John Boyd-Orr. In his


recommendations on infantile mortality in Scotland, he took such a serious view of the situation that he urged, with all the vehemence at his command, that some immediate steps should be taken to provide temporary housing.
With what result were those appeals made to the Government? We have passed the Town and Country Planning Act. Well and good. We have been shown a number of prefabricated houses as models; and most of them are admirable. Lord Portal, to whom I would like to pay tribute for his energy, his tact, and his enthusiasm, which were never damped, has been dismissed. We have encouraged local authorities to make application for allocations. But, with all these preliminaries, we are no nearer getting the houses, judging by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, than we were when we started. For years we heard the excuse of shortage of labour and shortage of materials. That became a classic. In a previous housing Debate I mentioned that When the need arose both labour and material were found. I mentioned the case of the Americans suddenly descending upon us in their thousands, and overnight the airfields and camps were produced. Surely, there is an equally good case for providing houses for the men who produced those airfields and camps. We now have another excuse besides labour and materials—the necessity to house the bombed-out homeless first. Everyone who walks about London, who goes into the tubes or the big public shelters and sees all these unfortunate, white-faced, miserable people huddling there, will agree that the first claim on all labour and material must be to repair the bombed homes. But, surely, the Minister will take care to earmark these 13,000 men, to whom reference has been made, as they become free, for this job of making prefabricated temporary houses.
I believe that temporary housing is so much speedier than permanent housing that we should concentrate on it. But what will happen when permanent houses are built alongside the temporary houses? Are we to have duplicate roads, sanitation, and pumps? That would mean waste. It has not been explained whether permanent houses will be put on the same sites as the temporary houses, or whether the temporary houses will last until they

become slums, and then be pulled down for the permanent houses to take their place. Comment has been made to-day, and in the public highways and byways, and also in the Press, on the slowness with which we are getting on with the repair of bombed premises. I believe that some of the criticism has been misleading and misguided. We are told that workmen are seen standing idle, playing cards, and spending most of their time at meals. But I have made inquiries of a number of contractors who are employing these men, and I am told that shortage of material is the chief factor, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston has said, and that very often these men, energetic and capable workmen, have thrown up their jobs in absolute frustration. The trouble is that we get a sense of resentment among the public, and of frustration among the workmen.
If that is due to inefficient local authority control—and some of the local authorities are very inefficient—the Government should make it clear that these local authorities are responsible. If the local authorities are responsible, what is the bottle-neck? Why is there this reluctance, apparently, to deal with the bombed houses? Let an explanation be given to the public so that undue and unfair criticism would not continue to be made. I know that my right hon. Friend is terribly keen on this business, but I wonder whether he knows all the facts of the situation. I have here a letter from a very progressive building company, and all they want is Government permission and the necessary materials for the construction of prefabricated houses. They say:
All we ask is that the Government, through one of their own official research bodies, should give official information immediately on the various systems of house construction which they have examined, and have the materials canalised and allocated accordingly.
That seems to me a pretty reasonable suggestion. Here is a good and well-tried firm, willing to help in prefabrication, whose work is known, accepted and appreciated, and I hope that the Minister will accept this letter from me afterwards. I am not giving the name of the firm, because I do not want to give them an advertisement, and because there are, no doubt, other firms, all of whom are waiting and only require official encouragement and help.
I want to express a certain amount of doubt about some of the remarks made by the Minister of Works. I think we have got rather confused views on the Government's policy. The Minister said, and it was referred to by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), that we would not be ready to embark on the erection of these temporary houses until the war in Europe is won. That was the impression I got.

Mr. Willink: Only the pressed steel type of temporary house.

Sir T. Moore: I am obliged to the Minister, and I accept that. I would, then, reinforce a suggestion that has been made that local authorities be dragged away from this belief that only large-scale contractors should be employed. It is easy for local authorities to employ people like Wimpey's or MacAlpine's, which saves them a lot of trouble in the effort to find small men. I have in my constituency a number of builders who have built very good houses, but who are now over age and not on any war work. They have undertaken to collect over-age labour, and, at any rate, ease the shortage that exists in their respective districts. I put that suggestion forward to the Ministers concerned, and what was the answer I got? "Tell them to get in touch with their local authority." I passed on that very unhelpful information, and the result was that nothing has been done, simply because the local authorities prefer to save themselves trouble, and get the big contractors to do the job.
There is one fear that is afflicting many people, and that is the direction of demobilisation in regard to the production of houses. Here, again, is a case where unified control and unified direction are absolutely essential. Whatever Minister is responsible for demobilisation, he must be in such close touch with the Service Departments that demobilisation follows the production of houses, and, I hope of jobs, and does not precede it. Otherwise we shall indeed have the social unrest to which I have referred. It would be far better for the Government to keep our troops on occupation duty in Europe, suitably housed, fed, and cared for, than bring them back to this country before we are ready to put them into decent homes. [Interruption.] Well, I think even to sacrifice the amenities of family life and

relationships would be better than bringing them back to feel that they have been let down, as their fathers were let down before them. I am thinking of the country now, rather than of the individual.
There is one final point I want to make. That is in regard to certain local authorities. I do not want to appear too critical, but there are local authorities who are behindhand, or behindmind, in this matter. They are slow and unwilling to accept the responsibilities that modern conditions demand of them. I am talking now of the transfer of slum dwellers to housing schemes. I have often heard it said: "He, or she—usually she—is slum-minded, and will destroy the nicest house within three months." Apart from the consideration of who made them slum-minded and whether or not it was the rich industrialists of 100 years ago who insisted on creating the drab and dreary villages we now see, we, as a community, are responsible for the slum mind. I have seen experiments carried out by a local authority extending over a period of ten years. A complete slum area was evacuated from a particular town and the people put into a housing estate. During the first year, there was something like 40 per cent. disappointment. In other words, the new occupants did not act up to the hopes entertained of them. After a year and a half, that 40 per cent. had been reduced to 20 per cent., and, to-day, it is less than 5 per cent. In other words, by the educative value of maintaining them in decent houses, with little gardens and amenities around them, the slum mind was educated into a clean mind, and that local authority succeeded in doing something which, for generations, has not been tackled, because it was assumed that the slum mind remained permanent. There is no such thing as a permanent slum mind. All people need is to be given decent surroundings, plus the stimulating influence of the clean person and the flowers in the window of the next door neighbour's house and you gradually educate that mind in the community idea, as regards the people themselves and their children, and they will produce a better generation in the future.
I hope I have not been too critical of the Minister. I have not meant to be, but, if he feels as I do, I ask, Would he not consider the value of the encouragement to him and his colleagues if there


were one directing head, to unify all the various sincere and honest efforts, so that no step will be omitted and the whole may be combined into the successful achievement, which this House and the country would like to see?

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Douglas: To-day's Debate has made it clear that hon. Members of all parties in this House are deeply concerned about the housing problem. Of all the domestic issues which confront us, there is none which is so urgent and so important for the well-being of our people. It ought not to be forgotten that it took the whole of the 20 years between the two wars, to relieve the housing situation sufficiently to justify the Government in removing control over rents from all except the lowest rented houses.
The situation which faces us now is far worse than that which arose at the end of the last war. We had already at the beginning of this war a residual of insanitary, dilapidated, worn-out houses which required to be demolished and replaced. We had the problem of overcrowding and to that has been added the cessation of building during the war. There are the wear and tear and the dilapidations which have taken place, worse than during the last war, because of the greater restriction on the employment of labour, the obtaining of paint and other materials to keep the houses in repair. In addition to that, there is the devastation caused by bombing. Particularly, I want to refer to the situation in the London region, which is one of extreme desperation. I do not think that the Ministers responsible realise what the position is. The population of London at the present moment is denuded by evacuation and because people have gone to industrial employment in other parts of the country or are enlisted in the Services. There are far fewer people to be accommodated than in normal times, and when demobilisation and industrial transference begin, the pressure upon accommodation is going to be extremely severe.
I do not accept the estimate which has been made by the Ministers that the second stage repairs are going to be completed by 1st April next year. London Members of Parliament some time ago saw Lord Woolton, who was designated

by the War Cabinet to co-ordinate the matter, and Sir Malcolm Eve, the official who was entrusted with co-ordination on the official level. We were told, upon the basis of experience, that 800,000 or so houses which had suffered damage in the London area would receive second stage repairs by 1st April, and that it was hoped that, with more labour being directed to this purpose, the job would be completed sooner. I have had an estimate made by the responsible officers of the local authority of Battersea, part of which I represent, and their calculation was that upon the present supply of labour it will take, from a few days ago when this calculation was made, 50 weeks before the second stage repairs are completed—nearly a whole year. I made inquiries about the amount of labour which had been allocated to my borough and I was told that, if anything, it was above the average in proportion to the amount of damage which had been suffered.
If that is the case, it follows that, over the whole London region, the Ministers' estimates are false and that the public are being deceived. They are becoming extremely restive over this matter. There is nothing which is causing such deep and bitter complaint as the conditions under which people are having to live at the present moment. By fortunate chance the weather has so far been comparatively mild but the worst part of the winter has yet to come, and if it should be a severe winter, there will be most serious injury done to the life and health of our people. It is a ghastly prospect which lies before us if this repair work cannot be completed within less than 50 weeks or so from the present time. I do not get the feeling from the Ministers whom one meets with regard to these matters that there is a real sense of urgency about this question. I am disappointed after the interviews we had with Lord Woolton and Sir Malcolm Eve that the position does not appear to improve and that the period of completion is so long delayed.
I would like to say a few words with regard to the long-term part of the housing programme. The repair of war damage is not sufficient; it is a temporary expedient in order to tide us, to some extent, over the present difficulty, but after that there will remain a vast deficiency of accommodation. According to present estimates, the cost of building


after the war is going to be 30, or 60 per cent. perhaps, above the pre-war level. The burdens upon the local authorities are going to be increased by all the multitudinous duties and the expansion which public policy has imposed upon them in education services, and town planning, particularly in those areas which have suffered from bombing and where, therefore, it is an imperative necessity that the rebuilding that takes place should be upon a better planned lay-out. The opportunity cannot be lost, but these districts are going to suffer the double burden of an excessive amount of expenditure upon housing and upon planning, with all the outlay in compensation or purchase of land which that involves.
The rates will go up, in some areas very considerably, and it is high time that, while we are thinking about the permanent housing problem, we should think not merely about the mechanics of it, but about the economics of it. Can we go on imposing, as we are doing at the present moment, a heavy burden of rates upon every house that is built and make them dearer for the tenants who live in them. There is support very frequently on the other side of the House for proposals for relieving industry of taxation. Here is an object which ought to be relieved of taxation. The alternative is that we go on subsidising the building of houses to a larger and larger extent out of the Exchequer and out of the local rates, with consequent discrimination between one class of tenant and another, those who get municipal houses and those who are condemned to occupy the worst houses which are provided by private enterprise. Subsidisation inevitably involves these discriminations, this choice of tenant.
It is time that we relieved houses from local rates, and at the same time we ought to deal with the other part of the problem—the price of land—which is the obstacle to all housing enterprise and replanning. We should at least put some of the burdens of rates upon site values so that we could eliminate at its source the speculation, which every one of us who has been engaged in local affairs knows holds up housing, requires the local authority to pay excessive prices and handicaps the operation of these proposals from the start. I beg the Ministers who are concerned with these matters, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who

is concerned with national finance, to consider what the economic position of housing in this country is going to be after the war.

5.20 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: There is one thing on which I think there is complete unanimity in every portion of the House to-day, and that is the urgent and vital need for more adequate housing for the people of our country. I am told that in the happy days before the last war there was, generally speaking, housing accommodation available for all, and I can say that in the city of Glasgow, where my constituency is, there were in 1914 no less than 19,000 empty houses. What a very different situation we face at the present time. We have been told on numerous occasions within the past two years by various Ministers that the housing requirements of England and Wales amount to between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000, and another half a million are required for Scotland. We have been told by the Minister of Health that these houses are required to replace the slums and houses which have fallen below the required standard, to provide a separate house for each family, and to eliminate overcrowding. Now that means, as the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) said—I am putting my figure a little higher than he did—that we really require now 4,000,000 houses if the people of the country are to be adequately housed.
That seems to me to confront our country with a stupendous task, but it is one which I think the Government have indicated that they intend to tackle with resolution, determination, and with all possible speed. They cannot move too fast in that direction because, as the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) told us a few moments ago, the conditions under which some of our fellow citizens live to-day almost beggar description. It seems to me that at one end of the scale you have married couples who cannot to-day find accommodation which enables them to reside together while, at the other end of the scale, you have the most serious over-crowding. I have had brought to my notice recently three cases: one, of a family of 15 persons—a mother and father, four daughters and nine sons whose ages range from 20 years to four months—living in a two-apartment house


without any lavatory accommodation or other conveniences; another case was of 12 persons inhabiting a similar house; yet another where there is a family of nine people living in a single room. We cannot have a reasonably healthy nation under conditions such as these, and such cases, I would suggest, are by no means uncommon.
We require speed to relieve such conditions, but in the past speed has not been apparent, for two of these cases I have cited to the House have been known to the local authority for over seven years and nothing has been done. Why? Here I would like the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend. Why has nothing been done? Because the local authorities say they do not build houses which are large enough for these families and that, if they were to remove them into the largest type they provide, that would not relieve overcrowding as defined in the Housing Acts and the local authority would lose the subsidy. I request my right hon. and learned Friend, and I also request the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, to be good enough to look into this matter, to see if something cannot be done to relieve the housing conditions of large families throughout the country.
To obtain speed in the initial stages, the Government have introduced the temporary house, and I think that is altogether essential. They tell us that they will produce 2,500 a week, or 130,000 a year, and I do not see, in spite of what has been said this afternoon, how that could possibly be done in any other way. They are absolutely essential to bridge the gap until permanent houses can be provided. I have been informed by my local authority, however, that they are unable to state the number of temporary houses they will require until they know how many sites can be prepared, and they are not prepared to go ahead with temporary houses if they discover—or imagine they discover—that permanent houses can be provided in about the same time. Therefore, they want to know what labour and what material will be made available for the preparation of sites, and when it is to be made available. When they refer that question to the Minister of Labour, or to other Ministries, they do not receive any satisfactory answer, and they contend that while

they are told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that labour is available, when they make application to the Ministry of Labour, they receive little or no result. I mention that case because it seems to me that it may be applicable to other local authorities than mine. So much for temporary houses. It seems to me that they are necessary but, from the point of view of my local authority at least, the situation is not too encouraging, and if we are to get speed—which after all is the main virtue of the temporary house—then it is apparent that there should be some greater measure of co-operation between the various Departments concerned.
Let me turn for one moment to the question of the permanent house. The Prime Minister has told us himself that the Government's programme is to give us between 200,000 and 300,000 houses, built or building, at the end of the second year after the defeat of Germany. What I would like to know is, by what means are these houses to be provided? I suggest that the Government should take the House fully into their confidence in that matter for, at the present moment, we really know very little of their intentions. We know the number of houses they intend to provide, and that sites are being acquired; we know that a subsidy is to be provided, though the amount has not yet been determined; but I think that the House has a right to be consulted on the means that will be employed for, if the Government's plan falls short of the country's expectations, then not only will the Government be held responsible but every hon. Member of this House, and I think rightly so, if we are to be satisfied with generalities on a matter of such vital importance. It is true that hon. Members who follow carefully Ministerial utterances may have received some indication of the Government's intentions from a speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health in Oxford on 17th November, when he is reported to have used these words:
However much we believe in private enterprise, most of the houses will be built by local authorities.
I should very much like to know in detail exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend meant when he said that. If he meant that the local authority will themselves build the houses with their own


labour, and will supervise their own building, then I am rather afraid that we shall be considerably disappointed at the speed of the operation, for it does not seem to me that they have yet sufficient experience in the handling of building labour and in the supervising of building operations to lead to speedy construction. I suggest to the House that the whole experience of building in the inter-war years proves that for, as has been mentioned before to-day, while the local authorities built 1,000,000 houses, free enterprise provided very nearly 3,000,000. In Scotland during the same period, where the local authority—due to our somewhat unfortunate rating system—is the only medium to whom the working man can look now for the provision of houses, they provided 220,000 houses; that, spread over the period, is an average of 11,000 houses a year. Therefore it seems to me that we are in this position: the country as a whole needs 4,000,000 houses and the inter-war average of house-building by the local authorities was 61,000. Unless that rate is to be very much improved upon, if it continues as it was then, it will take 65 years to make up the present deficit.
To take a slightly nearer view of the problem, in the first four years after the last war, 97,500 houses were produced. In the same period after this war, on the information we have had from the Prime Minister, we shall have built, or building, between 400,000 and 600,000 houses. To achieve that figure we shall have to do five times as well as we did after the last war, or, if it be left to the local authorities, and they continue the average which they had in the inter-war years, they will save to do 10 times as well as they did during that period. Nothing is impossible—I am aware of that—but I beg leave to doubt whether local authorities have the capacity to achieve such results. If it is the intention of the Government to entrust this enormous building programme to the local authorities, or their intention to give them first priority in regard to labour and materials, my fear is that we shall fall very far short of the target figure which has been indicated by the Prime Minister. Not only that, but I fear that free enterprise, which has done so much to provide houses for the working class in the past, will be out of the picture in that connection for all time.

That, from my point of view, would be greatly to the detriment of the country as a whole. Free enterprise is essential, not only as a check on costs but also to provide a standard by which its work and that of the local authority can be judged, checked and compared.
The Prime Minister has suggested that this great problem should be undertaken as a military evolution. I want to suggest, with all deference, that what is really called for is a combined operation. So, I make the plea that every agency should be brought in—local authorities, housing associations, and, most of all, private builders, who have proved that they are capable of delivering the goods. I do not wish to suggest for one moment that it will be a simple matter to co-ordinate the activities of these various agencies, but I suggest it can be done, and ought to be done in the national interest. Adequate housing is essential if we are to increase the well-being and health of our people. If it is provided I am quite sure that many of the problems which seem difficult of solution to-day—ill-health, the continued spread of tuberculosis, intemperance and juvenile delinquency, to mention just a few—will fall into their proper perspective, and be found much more simple of solution than they appear at the present time. The speedy solution of the housing problem is fundamental to the future well-being of the country, and so I ask that to-day we might be told not only the number and type of houses the Government intend to construct, but how it is proposed that they should be provided, what agencies they intend to employ and how they intend to allocate labour and materials so that Members may be in a position to judge of the adequacy of their plans, not merely from appearance but on solid fact.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that perhaps the most satisfactory part, of the speech made by the Minister of Works was his announcement that he was solely responsible for dealing with bomb damage, and for concerting all action in connection with the repair of bomb-damaged property. I welcome the view that there should be a Minister responsible for that matter to this House, but there is little point in making that change if the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, in a Debate of this kind, are absent for nearly three hours. I think


this custom of Ministers not attending Debates which affect their Department is one which should be terminated at the earliest possible moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] We have been told by the Prime Minister that the Minister of Health is the ambassador between the local authorities and the Ministry of Works on housing questions. Where is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works? Where is the Minister himself? If they were here, I would say to them that we are not concerned or impressed by being told about the vast amount of money being spent on war damage repair or, indeed, by the numbers of men employed in London on that work. I feel that whatever the cost and the number may be what we want to be satisfied about is that the work is being done and is being done speedily. The words in the Gracious Speech:
Progress will be made with the housing question,
were comforting, but I want to be satisfied that everything possible is being done, and will be done in the future. It seems that there is no incentive to speed in the execution of bomb damage repair. One point has not been mentioned in the Debate so far, and that is that most of these repairs are executed on the cost plus basis. Well, we have had some experience with regard to cost plus in the building of militia camps, and when work is required to be done quickly that is a wrong sort of arrangement to make. I do not think it is impossible, with the materials known to be available, to formulate some form of contract with a penalty clause if the work is not done sufficiently speedily. This matter affects my division in a particular way. It has been fortunate in not sustaining much bomb damage. The people there not only have great sympathy with those who have suffered in London and other places which are experiencing delay in the execution of repairs, but they know full well that until those who have suffered bomb damage—who have and they think should have priority—are dealt with, their own housing situation cannot be remedied. So it is of vital interest to them that there should be no delay in dealing with this problem, for which the Minister of Works is solely responsible. In all parts of the country you will find the same situation. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Spenny-

moor (Mr. Murray) speaking about conditions in his own constituency. The housing situation in parts of my constituency is also extremely acute. Married people who have been directed to employment there have been living as lodgers for years. Their employment will be permanent, and yet there is no provision for housing them after the war. They can have no hope of getting proper accommodation unless the housing problem in London is tackled with vigour.
Having heard the greater part of this Debate, I am not at all sure that it is not accurate to say: "The plans so far revealed are inadequate to meet the situation." I have read with interest a Resolution from the Labour Party Executive, which is to come before the Labour Party Conference next week. I understand that on that Executive there are the Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security. It is a novel spectacle, and one which is entirely unconstitutional, for Members of the Government to sponsor Resolutions, for consideration at a conference, which attack the Government.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I think the hon. Member is going outside the scope of this Debate.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I was merely using that to show that I felt that I was not alone in expressing the view which I am now putting forward to the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All the more reason for not expressing it, lest we widen the Debate too much.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did not intend to continue, Sir, after you called me to Order.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the fact that the hon. Member has discussed this, will it be in Order to remind him that there is sometimes a Conservative Conference held?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that is a point of Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: One thing that impresses me is that there seems to be some idea that a different standard of


housing should apply in rural areas. I thoroughly dislike what they call the Dudley rural type house. I thing the solution lies in erecting these prefabricated permanent houses or the wide fronted type shown at Northolt. I hope that, as time goes on, we shall hear less and less about these temporary houses made out of pressed steel. From what we have heard, it looks as if it will be a long time before they are dotted about, disfiguring the whole of the country.
There is another matter that applies particularly to the county part of which I represent, and that is the question of condemned houses. I am not in favour of lowering the housing standard but I am satisfied that in that county a great many houses have been condemned which ought not to have been, and it will be disastrous if our housing situation is accentuated in consequence of the mistakes that have been made in the past. I should like to quote from a book which has just been published and which we were told to read by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and County Planning in a recent Debate. It is a book called "Our Building Inheritance." It says:
It is a most reprehensible practice which allows medical officers of health to condemn a structure and order its demolition when they have no architectural knowledge to enable them to pass judgment. It is true that the Ministry of Health has a architectural staff, but its existence is something of an anomaly, and it certainly cannot prevent the false diagnosis of buildings and their unjust sentence by the doctors. The County of Northampton presents a serious example of the losses to which absurdities lead. The historic town of Higham Ferrers and many another Northamptonshire village have been threatened with mutilation and the removal of well-built stone houses and cottages merely because the health authority cannot distinguish between good building and bad and is not sufficiently informed of the value, both practical and cultural, of a rural architecture that needs only judicious repair and modern equipment to meet all needs. It seems incredible that anyone can be so blind to what is excellent as to desire to obliterate the beautiful stone buildings of such a county and substitute what is generally so much worse. It is more incredible that we allow such misjudgment to have power and to impoverish us all.
I have sent the Minister of Health photographs of no fewer than four reconditioned buildings which have been condemned. I have only had an opportunity of going over one of them myself, and I should be perfectly content to live there. I am absolutely satisfied that it would be

healthy to live in. It is a building of about the 17th century, occupied by someone who has been bombed out of London. She spent £200 of her war damage money, and it is still condemned. There is no incentive for the repair of houses which are condemned. Methods have changed. A lot can be done now which was not practicable at the time when these houses were condemned. I would ask the Minister to press for a review of these condemned houses to see whether it is possible to recondition them and make them available for human occupation, and so lessen the housing problem which confronts us in that part of the country as in many others.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I do not want to occupy much time because, coming in at the tail-end of the Debate, one is liable to repeat many arguments with which one agrees, and not to add very much to the solution of the problem. As I listened to the new Minister to-day the phrase was running through my mind, "Is your house built upon a rock, or upon the sands?" The right hon. Gentleman was doing his best to introduce himself in his new capacity. I wonder if he, a young man in politics, is fully seized of the enormity of the problem now facing the country. There is nothing more threatening to the stability of the State after the war than the housing problem. It is all very well to say, "Go to the Continent and fight for liberty, freedom and all the other things," if men are to come back from the fight to the slum and the congested area. Those are the things that breed what is called Communism, or Fascism, more readily than anything else I know.
What are we going to do about it? The appointment of a new Minister is the usual solution to problems. If you are in any difficulty, appoint a Commission. When the Commission reports, put it in the Library. The shelves in the Library groan under the weight of these voluminous Reports. I invite any hon. Member to go into the Library to look at the Reports of reconstruction committees after the last war. Who reads them now? I think I am the only one who does so, and I do it for archaeological reasons. What are we going to get now? What we have been having for the last two or three years. Research


departments. Research for what? Something that will not be done. Town and country planning—research. Works and buildings—research. The Ministry of Health has been researching until it has become a by-word. What are they researching about? They want to find out the cause of bad housing. It is self-evident. There are three causes. The first is the difficulty of access to sites—I put it in that way—and the next is the rating system, which penalises you if you dare to build a house. When is this House going to wake up about it? When I listen to these Debates I wonder if I am in the House of Commons, or in some fantasy.
We have committed ourselves to legislation on education, a national health service, and half-a-dozen other schemes which will cast such rates on houses as will make housing an impossibility, and the Minister of Health knows it. He knows perfectly well that the rates to be levied on houses commensurate with the requirements of the new legislation are such that we cannot expect any working man or woman to pay the rent and the rates. The three causes, therefore, are land, rating and low wages. We have three or four Ministries dealing with housing, and not one of them has any power to deal with any of these three causes. We go on having fancy schemes about rehousing.
Look at where we are now. There are something like 300,000 building operators at our disposal at the moment. Half of them are now engaged in dealing with demolition in London. Remember there are Plymouth, Hull, Glasgow and other places which have been heavily bombed and which are really sympathetic towards London, but they are waiting until something is done in their areas also. The building operatives will be involved in damage repairs for the next two-and-a-half years. Supposing the war ends in that time—and I am not altogether optimistic about that—where is the building labour to set about temporary work? It is not here now, because we are compelled to use building labour on damage repairs. We are compelled to use brick-layers on these jobs. Great promises have been made to-day that the Government are going to do something about it without at the same time reckoning with the facts.
If I may deal for a moment with temporary building, I have been informed on the best authority that a certain group approached the Minister's predecessor and offered to put up something like 10,000 huts between the date of their offer, about four weeks ago, and Christmas, and they were turned down. I would like to know if that is true. The group was referred to by the Minister to-day. I refer to the Phoenix Group, which put up the quay-ways when they were sent over to France. The temporary hut which they devised was evolved as a result of their experience in sending these docks over to France. They brought this hut, which had stood the test of going over the Channel, before the Ministry of Works, and were promptly turned down. We must know where we are because we heard the Minister state to-day that the temporary huts would not come into production until next year.

Mr. Sandys: Temporary housing.

Mr. Willink: My right hon. Friend did not say anything of the kind. He said that the production of the steel type of temporary house would not come into production until the end of the war in Europe.

Mr. MacLaren: I stand corrected. Will there be temporary houses produced before Christmas?

Mr. Sandys: I think the hon. Member is confusing temporary houses and temporary huts. This group of contractors did first of all put up a scheme for the production of temporary huts, and, as I explained in my remarks this afternoon, we are now trying to bring them into the temporary housing programme instead of the huts, because we are not anxious to continue indefinitely the programme of huts. Housing is infinitely superior.

Mr. MacLaren: I have been through this hut and examined it. It is far from the ideal home that one would like to remain in under duress for four or five years, but it would be a God-send to thousands of people now. This group promised to produce 10,000 of these huts before Christmas, and they were turned down. I want to know if that is true, because that would have been a great help in bombed areas where people have nowhere to turn, with the hardest part of the winter facing them, for a roof over their heads.
When we come to what might be called temporary houses, we are again faced with the problem of building labour. I do not know how many builders we are going to bring back from the Army, but we want double the numbers we now have to make any effective start on temporary building. Far be it from me to ask women to do things that I would rather be the job of men. We have been experimenting on temporary houses in my constituency, and there is a lot that, women can do. I am referring in particular to what we call slab tile wall sections. It is a process in which you put tiles on a sort of tray pouring over a backing of foam-slag which gives you a wall section six feet by two feet. When it is taken off the tray it looks as if it were brickwork. These sections are hung on steel framework, and the outside shell of the house can be put up in a day and a half. These sections can be made by women labour. I have seen other houses which are highly commendable as temporary products. I cannot see how we are going to get the labour to deal with the speed of production that has been mentioned to-day unless we bring in female labour in many jobs which are not heavy. In fact, some are rather interesting.
With regard to permanent housing, the Government are aiming at an ideal system which most of us here will never see. When shall we begin the building of houses in this country at all? I do not know. The problems facing us are so enormous, and the urgency makes it still more impressive; the dangers that will come upon the State if something is not immediately done are so menacing that we shall have enough to concern us in this country for the next five or six years before we come to deal with permanent housing. I would ask the House—it is no good asking Ministers, because, after all, Ministers have accomplished the great political ideal of becoming Ministers, and that is their main concern—to realise that the problem of housing cannot be solved unless it is courageously faced by men who will have but little interest in the orthodox methods of the past, and who will deal dramatically or determinedly with the root problems that block the way to proper housing.
I repeat that we cannot possibly deal with permanent housing if we persist in our present rating system. It is making housing an impossibility. If the Govern-

ment are really serious about this, if we mean what we say about housing and the necessity of housing, let us have the courage to deal with the causes that keep us in the present bad housing conditions. The rating system is doing it. It has been condemned time and time again by commission after commission. It is self-evident. The thing we want more vitally than anything else is housing, and yet we heavily penalise it by a taxation process which makes it an impossibility. An hon. Member for Glasgow spoke this afternoon from the other side of the House about families of 11 or 12 people living in Glasgow in two rooms. I know what that is. I was born outside Glasgow, and lived there in my childhood days, and it still hangs over my mind like some horrible memory. Those houses in Glasgow, with their serried storeys, their one-close entries, no bathrooms and no lavatory accommodation, still have people living in them, It is appalling. It is a standing disgrace. In passing, let me say that I often wondered what the men who live there have thought, when war has broken out and they have been asked to go from those foetid dens to defend their country.
It was that state of affairs in Glasgow, that very circumstance that in Glasgow we could boast of the finest slums in Europe, that more than 40 years ago made the Glasgow people arrive at a solution of this problem, a solution which England has not yet come to understand. We then saw in Glasgow that we could do nothing to expand the city and make it more beautiful, or to rehouse the people in Glasgow, while, even at that time, we had the deadening, tightening hand of speculators in operation in the city, and a rating system which made housing an impossibility. It was in Glasgow that we were able to proclaim, more than 40 years ago, that the royal road to rehousing was to abolish the rating system, put the rates on the site values, and so break down the land monopoly and enable the city to extend its outer perimeters. That was the conclusion arrived at and proclaimed 40 years ago. Now, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works, are sending abroad innocents called investigators, to find out what is the cause.
I have repeated the cause now. I hope that when a Member of this House speaks with a measure of real sincerity the


Ministries will listen to what he says. It is no use a Member getting up in this House and making a speech, if it is merely to do no more than to have a record in HANSARD so that he can go home and show it to his wife on the following morning. Surely we are doing something more than that, when we enter into these discussions. The home is the tabernacle of the family. It is the home that makes the deepest impressions on the young mind, and that makes the man of the future. If the home is a foetid, bug-ridden place, depend upon it that the child's mind will have that impression for the rest of its life.
Can we pass through this country without realising this? Who is there, in this House, who is not ashamed when he comes into a London railway terminus? What do we see as we enter our main stations here in London? A Sahara of slums. Is there no pride left in the Englishman, and have Britishers no sense of dignity? Have we gone so far away from an instinctive feeling of pride in our own country that we are going to tolerate this much longer? Are vested interests so sacred that we must not touch them, and that, rather than touch them, we must set in motion an expensive process of alternative houses and new Ministries? I beg of this House, let Members turn their attention to this housing problem. It is one of the greatest problems facing this country, because it is more than a material problem. If it is not solved, it will decay the spirit of our people. Our people are worthy, much more worthy than most people, of the best houses we can provide for them. If we win victories on the battlefield and our people have to come back to this state of affairs, how true it will be to repeat the words of the Roman Gracchi who, speaking to the returned legionaries, said: "You have gone abroad, you have vanquished our enemies. You have now come back to the Imperial city with the trimmings of victory swinging on your banners—to return to cellars which even your horses would refuse to inhabit." Is that what we have to say to the heroes when they come back to this country?
I hope I am wrong, but I seem to get the impression that there is not much deep thinking but much superficial temper pervading our Fighting Forces and that they will certainly not tolerate what they

tolerated after the last war. I appeal through you; Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to this House: For God's sake let us set aside personal career and ambition in this matter and look at the housing programme as a solemn project for raising not merely the bodies of our nation but for opening some fresh era, some highway, to a better soul and spirit for our people.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I am sure that the whole House will have been thrilled by the eloquent appeal which has just been made, and will hope that it will not fall upon deaf Ministerial ears. If Government policy reflected my hon. Friend's belief and faith in the value of the home, this Debate would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, it does not, and the Debate has been only too necessary. Those affected by the housing shortage will be most concerned about the Ministerial statement which has been made to-day. We know who they are. They are the wives and dependants of the men in the Fighting Forces, men and women who have made that magnificent contribution to Britain's war effort of which we have read with pride in the recent White Paper. They are the men who have been discharged from the Services owing to ill health or those who will be demobilised in very large numbers, we hope, when the war in Europe is over. I feel that they will be very disappointed with the Ministerial statement. They will say that the more there is a change of Ministers the more the policy of the Government, which is the only thing that matters, remains the same.
The real purpose of the Debate was to make the Government go further than they went in the Gracious Speech in their undertaking with regard to housing. In that Speech the Government said that progress to deal with the housing shortage would take place after the war in Europe was over. Apparently, so far as concerns the pressed steel, temporary houses, that remains the Government's policy. I want to say how very sorry I was to hear my right hon. Friend stand by that position. I welcomed his appointment, as I recognised that he had on his side youth, energy and ability as well as a great opportunity, and I wanted him to make the most use of that opportunity. I say to him with all respect that if he is not careful his Ministry will be still-born. Everything depends on the stand he


makes now. If the Minister really is alive to the urgency of the housing problem, as he suggested in his opening remarks, he will not be content to wait until the war in Europe is over for the production of temporary houses on a large scale to take place. If he waits—and a policy of indecision will undoubtedly be criticised—he will find it difficult once again to regain the confidence which the country is prepared to give him now.
The point at issue between the Government and those who want immediate action is this: We believe that at this stage of the war a real active policy to deal with the housing situation is part of the war effort, and must be regarded and treated as such. It is in that spirit that I would ask the Minister to approach this problem. The Government have never realised since the beginning of the war the importance of the housing problem. They never seemed to realise that a home was a prime necessity, they never appreciated the fact that even when war broke out there was a housing shortage. After five years of war, at a time when, on estimates which some people question as too low, the need is for 4,000,000 houses, there remains a complete embargo on new houses. I cannot think of any other prime necessity upon which there has been so complete an embargo since the war began as on house building. It is true that 3,000 houses have been built for agricultural workers, but what are 3,000 houses when the need is at least something like 4,000,000?

Mrs. Tate: What houses.

Mr. Lipson: My hon. Friend says, "What houses." I shall not quarrel about the kind of houses that are put up to meet this immediate urgency. The important thing to anybody who knows the conditions under which very large numbers of people are living in damp basements, whole families crowded into one room, sometimes with a member of the family suffering from tuberculosis, is that there should be a house which can be a home, some kind of shelter. I have had an instance in my own constituency of a man discharged from the Army, suffering from tuberculosis, and he and his wife and four children live and sleep in one room. That is in an area which happily has not suffered very much from enemy attack. If conditions like that exist in my constituency how much more terrible

they must be in other constituencies which started with worse conditions, and which have suffered more from enemy action.
Therefore I say that the Government should in practice regard the provision of housing accommodation as a matter of immediate urgency, and they should approach it in exactly the same way in which they approached all the emergencies that have arisen during the war. It must be approached and tackled by the same methods with which we faced the difficulties of 1940 and the succeeding war years. All obstructions of any kind must be ruthlessly swept aside. It has been said on all sides of the House during the course of the Debate that the urgent need is for houses, and that whatever difficulties exist should be removed. I take it that those on this side of the House, who, it may be argued, represent one kind of vested interest, will be prepared to see the particular interest with which they are concerned sacrificed. In the same way I understand that the appeal which is made from the other side, if it means anything at all, means that whatever trade union restrictions there may be on production should be surrendered for this emergency, just as they have been surrendered for other emergencies of the war.
I am very concerned as to what is likely to happen when the war in Europe is over, if the men come back from serving with no proper homes to which to go. What they want is a home of their own, and it is much more important to give them that than to go into great details about amenities and things of that kind, which are likely to postpone meeting this very urgent need. There will be a very great social problem to be dealt with so far as our fighting men are concerned. They have been away, many of them, from their wives for four years or more. When they come back relations will need to be readjusted. Husbands and wives have not only been living apart, but living under unusual conditions. Will it be possible for those relations to be properly adjusted if they are living in other people's houses, if they are living in lodgings, if a daughter-in-law has to share a kitchen with a mother-in-law? Is it going to make it easy? I am really concerned as to the effect on the nation as a whole of what will happen unless this housing problem is dealt with urgently. For a very large section of our


people the dreadful housing conditions they have had to put up with, and for which they have had to pay a very heavy rent in a large number of instances, because these basements to which I have referred, these single rooms, very often cost in weekly rent more than a decent house, have been probably the greatest hardship of all in the course of the war. They have been extremely patient but I ask the Government, What are they waiting for? Are they going to wait until that patience is strained beyond the uttermost limit?
I would remind the Government that when the war in Europe is over it will still be necessary to maintain the national morale. The Government will have a very difficult task before them. There will be men who have been fighting for years in Africa, in Italy and in other parts of the Continent of Europe, who will be expected to go out to the Far East and wage another war under very frightening conditions for an indefinite period. Are we to ask these men to do that, and leave their wives and dependants continuing to live under the intolerable conditions in which many of them exist at present? I hope the Government will realise the immediate urgency of this problem. What is required is action now, and those who require the houses will not be satisfied with the statements that have been made to-day. They want an assurance that houses will be made available in large numbers in the near future.
It is all very well for the Government to say there are no redundant factories, and no men in the engineering industries who are redundant. Any of us who go to our constituencies, and mix with the men and with the employers and with the officials of the Ministry of Labour and the Man-Power Board, know that there are thousands of men who could be more usefully employed in the war effort by helping to deal with this housing problem. Our people have shown very great adaptability. Many of the men whose record in munition output has been extremely high had never had any previous experience. I believe that if an appeal were made to these men, if they were told that they were no longer required for work in the aircraft factories, but that there was another call for them, every bit as urgent, to make decent homes for the people who

have helped to save this country and civilisation, they would respond. The sands of time are running out. I believe, in all sincerity, that if the Government wait until the end of the European war, they will be too late. I say, with all earnestness, that the most urgent need is for houses in large quantities now; and I pray the Government to take positive steps to ensure that the people who need them get them.

6.22 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): No one can doubt that the day which has been devoted to this all-important subject has been of the very greatest value. It has certainly been of the greatest advantage to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, whom I may describe as the housing Ministers, and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works. I would like to say, on his behalf and with his authority, how much he appreciates the good wishes which have been extended to him in the vast field that he has undertaken; and I would like to say to him that there is no one in this House more genuine in extending those good wishes than myself.
The Debate was opened, in two most valuable speeches, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. D. Scott). With regard to the seconder—and may I link with him my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)?—I hope that they and the House will hold me excused if I say that most of their important points dealt with rural housing, and that these have been noted and will be dealt with in the Debate next Tuesday. A number of the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston I will mention in the course of these observations. I have left myself a comparatively short time, because I am the second Government speaker and I was anxious that enough time should be left for all the contributions which hon. Members fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, wished to make. I must deal with the matter, therefore, as speedily as I can. There are many points, particularly of a technical kind, which will be noted and looked into by the Ministry of Works. I shall spend most of the time available to me in the field which is my special responsibility, the work of the local authorities,


and in the field of permanent housing, which, when all is said and done, is what most of us care most about.
May I say a few words about repair and war-time work? First, with regard to London repairs my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), who I see is not in his place, was filled with gloom, as on other subjects was my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). My hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea is really wrong in suggesting that the Ministers concerned with London repairs and those who advise them, know nothing about the matter. The most careful examination is made of the probable date of completion of these repairs. The winter target for second-stage repairs in the London region amounts to 719,000 houses. There are also about 80,000 very severely damaged houses which it would be a misuse of labour to undertake in the winter months, and they will be taken in the spring. Of those 719,000 well over 200,000 had been done by 1st December. We believe that in a number of boroughs the target will be reached before 31st March, but we do not wish to promise too much. We believe that it will all be accomplished by 31st March. As to my hon. Friend's gloomy prognostications, he is referring to his own borough of Battersea. I know what an admirable Borough Surveyor there is in Battersea, acting on the instructions of his Council. It is true that the work is not going on as fast as it might. That is because, in Battersea, all rooms in all houses are being repaired, instead of repairs being confined to essential rooms for those using or likely to use those houses. As a result, repairs are going forward with less than the average speed.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the definition of second-stage repairs?

Mr. Willink: It means repairs which are necessary to make houses reasonably comfortable for occupation.

Sir Robert Tasker: What about the tens of thousands of houses which have been requisitioned and have remained empty for years?

Mr. Willink: It is perfectly true that a suggestion put forward that a very large number of sub-standard houses, far below the standard of the temporary houses, could be made available this year was not

considered a wise one to accept. It would have been impossible to prepare the sites for 10,000 such houses before this Christmas. Indeed, the preparation of sites for huts in most cases takes longer than the repair of houses. Our view was that this organisation would be more sensibly used in accelerating the production of temporary houses, particularly in view of the disappointment over the date at which the steel type can be produced. But there have been other forms of work done in this field. My hon. Friends the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) and the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) referred to the adaptation, or conversion, of large houses. I am glad to say that the central pool formed in this way is growing. Four hundred dwellings made by the conversion of large houses are practically ready for occupation, and some of the Western boroughs—Paddington, Kensington, Chelsea, St. Marylebone, and Westminster—have schemes which will amount to another 1,500 dwellings produced in this way. But there are strict limits to the extent to which you can produce additional dwellings made out of unoccupied houses, when there are hundreds of thousands of people needing work done on the houses which they occupy, May I add that since 22nd September no fewer than 12,319 premises have been requisitioned, including those requisitioned or taken over under requisition, from other Departments? It is very satisfactory to be able to say that from the War Department I have received 763 houses in the London region, and from the Royal Air Force 56. We are proceeding also with the requisitioning of a large number of large empty houses suitable for conversion, but, as I have said, there are strict limits to the number with which one can deal. We believe that we shall learn—and, indeed, we are learning—a good deal about the most economical and skilful way of doing conversions.

Mr. Bellenger: There are already many converted which are not being touched.

Mr. Willink: There are two other fields of war-time work which form part of our programme of house-building on which I should like to say something. On 7th November this year local authorities throughout the country were authorised, where labour was available, to rebuild destroyed council houses where the cost


of the work did not exceed £1,500 per house, and, at the same time and in the same way, facilities were arranged for private owners who wished to rebuild their own houses within the same limit of cost. This will be, at present, only with immobile labour. The House knows how we have had to drain the country for mobile labour for London, and when it is suggested that little has been done, I think the Government is entitled to claim that building up a labour force of 129,000 instead of 21,000 when these attacks began, has been an achievement.
The second matter I would like to mention is this. We are most anxious—and this falls within the field of my right hon. Friend—that the training of apprentices shall proceed. On the same day, 7th November, local authorities received a circular describing a scheme for training apprentices on special building work with a view to the recruitment of further craftsmen to the industry. It is only at that apprenticeship age that one has the labour in full supply, and it is most necessary that it should be trained for the work. The intention is that the scheme should apply to the building by local authorities of new houses, new school buildings, community centres and so forth, as opportunity offers. I feel that the development of these, at this moment, is important.
On the matter of huts, I am afraid I cannot to-day add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as recently as last Thursday, with regard to the generous offer to provide emergency accommodation from the United States, beyond saying that we are in cable correspondence daily with the Mission which is in the United States already, and that the matter is proceeding hopefully and satisfactorily; but there are, of course, questions to settle on design and fitments before the arrangements can be completed. With regard to Sweden and the point mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) if it were possible, and I should be most happy if it were, to get some of these houses they would be within the field of permanent housing. I can say no more about that at the moment, but it is very much in our minds.
I shall now turn to the questions raised on the temporary houses. My right hon. Friend cannot be specific on the prospects of production. Is it likely that he could

be, at the very height of the German war and with the Japanese war still before us. There is no reason to believe that the impossibility, by reason of munitions demand, of producing the steel houses before the defeat of Germany will itself reduce the total production of temporary houses during 1945. As the House knows, since the steel prototype was exhibited and inspected three other types have already been introduced, and of one of these, the Uni-Seco type, I am looking to see, and I have reason to expect, the arrival of 3,000 in the months of January, February and March for London. How wrong would it be to think that nothing was going to arrive except something put into production after the end of the German war. Further, as my right hon. Friend has said, he is exploring, in full consultation with myself, the possibilities of the Phoenix organisation.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) will remember that, on an earlier occasion, he was most pessimistic about the possibility of finding sites for temporary houses in the London region, and I think I should tell the House something of how this matter of sites is going. The London area is, of course, the most difficult of all, and it was for that reason that I asked the assistance of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I asked him to look at the London Region as a whole and say what land, whether it be to the extent of 3,000 acres or 5,000 acres, could best be used, forgetting for the moment everything about local authority boundaries. He has given me full information from the town planning point of view, about the most suitable land to be used in the London Region, and we are making good progress.
Some 27,000 temporary houses have already been allotted to the local authorities in the London Region, and I believe that they are asking for more. The London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs already have in view sites for between 7,000 and 8,000 houses, largely in the administrative county. And I believe that, all over the country, we shall be able to keep pace, in the acquisition and preparation of sites, with the production of the temporary houses and the production of their fitments. The local authorities have certainly seemed to want the temporary houses, for 94,423 have already been allotted to between 500 and


600 of the housing authorities in England and Wales. There are similar figures for Scotland.
As the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray), may I explain the principle on which this allocation is being made? There are technical reasons why it is desirable that, in the early stages, erection should be as little dispersed as possible; and, of course, the great bulk of the need is in the big towns, particularly those where there has been war damage. The fair allocations have therefore had to be made to places which could claim, on a population basis, at least 50 houses, which could be put up either on one site or on conveniently related sites. There has, of course, also been, wherever there has been war damage, an additional element in the allocation, a weighting for the loss of houses by war damage. I hope that it will be possible, in the second allocation, to make an allotment to the smaller authorities as well. I hope also—and I am considering this at the moment with my right hon Friend—that we may have some special arrangements for the rural districts, because I am most anxious that we should deal as fairly with the rural districts as with any other districts. The really important matter with regard to the temporary houses is that we should get a real correlation between the production of hulls and fitments and the acquisisition and preparation of sites, and my right hon. Friend and I, and our officers, are working in very close collaboration on this.
May I now turn to the permanent housing programme? There has been some confusion at times between the immediate housing need and the long-term housing programme. When I have referred to the immediate housing need, what I have had in mind and have sought to give an estimate of, is the number of houses which would be required here and now to meet the needs of the whole population, including those now serving in the Forces and in war work away from home, of those who would require a separate home; and it is that figure which in England and Wales we have put, and still put, at 1,000,000. We cannot, if we are to arrive at that figure, immediately raise our standards after five years of war and the cessation of building, but the figure is based on the standards of 1939. It is

made up on an estimate of the number of additional families since 1939, making allowance alas, for casualties, and of losses caused by the destruction of houses, an allowance of 300,000 for empties, which is only the proper allowance—about three per cent.—to allow for mobility, and 100,000 which had actually been included before the war in confirmed slum clearance Orders on which no further action has been possible. That gives us the million.
I was interested to see in an Oxford pamphlet on home affairs by a lady bearing a name very distinguished in statistical circles, the name of Bowley, that the immediate need was put at a lower figure. But we cannot think that we can do better in the first two years after the defeat of Germany than the 500,000 to 600,000 houses which are included in the double programme of temporary and permanent houses. We have been making very considerable preparations to achieve those aims.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) asked who were going to build the permanent houses. Apparently I had misled him, and indeed I was somewhat misreported, or inadequately reported, on the occasion to which he referred. We do expect that the majority of the permanent houses built during the first two years will be built in local authority schemes but—as in the great majority of cases before the war—under contracts made with building contractors, both large and small—large are sometimes appropriate and so are small. We believe that a very substantial part of the 300,000 houses which are our target for the first two years ought to be houses which have qualified for a cost-of-works payment, that is, where houses of good quality have been destroyed by the enemy. There, too, will be a field for private building enterprise. In the third place, I certainly hope that private enterprise will make a start on general house-building. Conditions immediately after a war, when prices are very high, are peculiarly difficult for private enterprise, but I have in mind, as I am sure the whole House has in mind, that the great bulk of the houses which were built between the wars were built by private enterprise; and that was the reason why a predecessor of mine set up a sub-committee of his Central Housing Advisory Committee to study this very


question of how private enterprise could most effectively contribute after the war. The report was unanimous. There were Members of all the principal parties upon it and their main theme was that the matter is so urgent that all agencies must be used.
When that report was published, in July of this year, I was able to announce at once that the Government had accepted the recommendation that Exchequer subsidies should be provided for houses built by private enterprise in the early post-war period. I am at the moment engaged in discussions with local authorities as to the subsidy needed for their houses, but I have good reason to believe that the leaders of the house-building industry are examining how best their activities can be fitted into the general picture I gave, in answer to a Parliamentary question of the conditions which must be laid down if they are to receive assistance from public funds. We must see that some of the abuses with regard to the private enterprise subsidy after the last war are not repeated. There must be limits with regard to the size of house that is built, and some control of the selection of tenants and the rents which are to be paid.
A question was raised in the course of the Debate on sites for private enterprise. It is a fact that private builders already own very substantial areas of developed land on which houses could be started without delay, and I do not think it possible, under the very great stress of preparing sites for the temporary houses and for the local authority programmes, that within the next few months, or really within any period which I could define, a labour allocation could be made to increase the area—which, as I have said, is very substantial—which private enterprise builders own and have already developed.
May I summarise the preparatory action which has been taken in partnership between the local authorities and my Department? We have obtained the best advice we could on three important aspects of the housing question—rural housing, private enterprise and the design of dwellings. May I say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston that I am as aware as he is of the fact that between the wars there was too much monotony

of size, too many three-bedroomed houses? He will find that point very fully recognised in "Housing Manual, 1944." As the outcome of the three reports I have mentioned "Housing Manual, 1944" was issued in September, and I would like to say, with regard to the Manual and to the Northolt experiment, that I regard the Duplex house, which was the product of the work of the sub-committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is chairman, as having great possibilities. By means of it we may be able to add substantially to the numbers which I have mentioned. It is two for one for a short period. I should also like to say how glad I am to hear the appreciation expressed of the concrete-clad house which was built by Lord Portal at Northolt. I believe that at a fortunate time a real stride forward has been made in the matter of prefabricated permanent buildings and I am myself alive to the possibility that prefabricated permanent buildings will make a large contribution to the solution of our difficulties. My right hon. Friend and I are in constant touch on this very point. But even that prototype at Northholt was not a complete and finished product. I should, personally, prefer it in the form of cottages, and there are various improvements which must obviously be made. They are being looked into.
To continue with my summary. We have passed the necessary legislation to assure the local authorities that the houses they build for general needs will rank for subsidy. We shall bring in a further Bill to fix the amount of subsidy as soon as the representatives of the local authorities—with whom I am in consultation, as I have said—feel ready to discuss the matter. They have been assured that the subsidy, when agreed, will be retrospective and will apply to any houses built under schemes approved after July, 1944; and so there is no reason why there should be any delay. I agree with the local authorities that it is better to wait before we fix the figure.
We have authorised the acquisition of sites by local authorities and have suspended for that purpose the war-time ban on borrowing. Local authorities have acquired land for 230,000 houses: they are in process of acquiring land for another 300,000 houses. When we sent the Housing Manual to local authorities, we


authorised them to submit their layouts—and how important layout is. They have submitted layouts for 72,000 houses. Sites for 20,000 houses are already developed; contracts for 30,000 more have been let. Tenders have been invited for 25,000 more house-sites, and negotiations are proceeding in respect of another 75,000. Local authorities have been asked to proceed on the basis, and in the hope, that a start may be made in the spring—by 1st April. We cannot tell whether that will be possible, but all preparations are being made on that basis. I am confident that the local authorities, 99½ per cent. of whom have submitted their programmes, are eager to make a start. Between the wars, they showed what they felt about housing by building a million houses, and I really do not share the gloom with regard to the possibility of building houses expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem. I feel that at quite an early date our short-term programme will merge into the long-term programme—to meet the need for 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 houses in 10 to 12 years—a programme to be carried out at a rate something between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. higher than the rate at which we were building immediately before the war.
It was felt that three Ministers speaking in this Debate would be inconvenient. I cannot answer specific points made by hon. Members from the other side of the Border, except, perhaps, just to give one or two bare facts which have been supplied to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The target in Scotland is to have 20,000 permanent houses, built or building, at the end of the first year after the defeat of Germany, and 30,000 more at the end of the second year. That figure includes houses which will be provided by the Scottish Special Housing Association. Scotland will, of course, get also its full quota of temporary houses. In Scotland, the local authorities already own sufficient land for 56,000 houses, and are in process of acquiring sites for 35,500 more. All those sites in Scotland, as in England, have been approved from both the agricultural and the town planning point of view, and I should like to assure the House that the machinery whereby these two all-im-

portant considerations are taken care of is working now with much greater rapidity and decisions are being arrived at very much more smoothly and satisfactorily in the regions without having to come to London every time. My right hon. Friend believes that, within the next six months, sites for 46,000 houses will be fully serviced with roads and sewers, ready for actual house-building to begin. He is more fortunate than we have been in England and Wales and it is, indeed, right that he should have been, because his need was greater; for since the war began, 35,000 houses have been completed in Scotland and 3,200 are at present under construction. Aplications made for temporary houses by Scottish local authorities amount to 54,000, and 33,000 have been allocated.
It is obvious that it is not for me to say anything about what some may consider or might describe, as the "Unitarian heresy" in the matter of the allocation of functions between Ministers. However, I would like to say just this on the present arrangement. Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and I have very wide fields to cover. The Prime Minister very recently described the arrangement. At the head of the "Housing Squad" is the Minister of Reconstruction, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised that he would himself preside whenever he considered it desirable. That is not only a promise—it has already been fulfilled. We are making, I am confident, good progress. The local authorities, on whom we shall depend more than on any other agency, have experience and confidence, which, of course, they had not in 1919. They are eager, as I am, to give the word "go" and, when it is given, I believe they will be found to be ready.

Captain Cobb: The Minister of Health has given us a very full and informative statement, and in the belief that this Debate has served an extremely useful purpose, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS

Select Committee appointed to revise the Standing Orders relative to Private Business:

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Magnay, Mr. Mander, Major Milner, Sir Stanley Reed, Sir Alexander Russell, Sir Harry Selley, Mr. G. Strauss, Sir Richard Wells and Sir Herbert Williams:

Power to send for persons, papers and records and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:

Three to be the quorum.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY AND PROMOTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Beechman.]

6.59 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: I am sure the House can approach a consideration of the pay and conditions of service of Army chaplains with a feeling of sincere thankfulness for the really wonderful work that Army chaplains have done since the war began. It has been my privilege to meet many padres of all denominations since the beginning of the war. Some of them, unfortunately, have been killed for the padre has never hesitated to go where the fighting is thickest. One of them has recently returned, a sick man, after spending over four years as a prisoner of war in Germany. Everywhere padres have been an inspiration to the troops and have proved not unworthy of Him who said:
Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister.
I believe these facts are fully realised I believe that the heads of the Service Departments recognise the splendid work that padres do for the maintenance of morale.
With these thoughts in my mind, I must confess that I was very surprised to learn that Army chaplains are not paid, as in the American Army, on the same basis as other officers of equal rank. They do not, in fact, receive the pay of their rank at all. A chaplain, fourth class, wears the rank badges of a captain, but he

does not receive a captain's pay. Hon. Members who are interested in a comparison between the pay of officers in different branches of the Service would do well to examine the written replies to questions which were put by my hon. Friend the Member of Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 25th February and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) on 7th November. They will see from those tables, which were published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that captains in the R.A.M.C. receive 24s. 6d. per day. The equivalent of captains in the R.A.O.C. and in the R.E.M.E. receive 23s. 6d. per day. Captains in the Army Dental Corps and the R.A.V.C. receive 22s. 6d. per day, while captains in the A.E.C. receive 19s. per day. Cavalry, Royal Artillery and infantry captains receive 16s. 6d. per day, and to that is added, in the case of the Royal Engineers, Royal Corps of Signals and R.A.S.C. Corps pay, at the lower rate, of 1s. 10d. per day and, at the higher rate, of 2s. 8d. per day. As against these figures the chaplain, fourth class, the captain, receives only 15s. 4d. per day, and these differences are perpetuated throughout the scale. For instance a lieut.-colonel in the R.A.M.C. receives 52s. per day, and a lieut.-colonel in the A.E.C. and in the infantry receives 43s. per day, while the chaplain, second class, who is a lieut.-colonel, receives only 36s. 2d. per day.
I should say that the qualifications of the Army chaplain are more properly comparable to those of officers in the medical and dental corps than to those in the combatant branches. Nearly all of them have taken university degrees and they are older men; I think this comparison with the doctors was present in the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kettering (Lieut.-Colonel Profumo), who, as the House will remember, flew back recently from Italy and made a memorable speech, in the course of which he referred to the
spiritual doctors, whose quiet work in the Services has been fine beyond description."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1986.]
But I think the fairest comparison of all is with officers of the A.E.C. These men, of very similar qualifications, age, and scholastic attainments, receive, at the rank of captain, 2s. 8d. per day more than the chaplain, and at the rank of lieut.-


colonel 6s. 10d. per day more than the chaplain. The case I want to make is that the pay of the Army chaplains, rank for rank, ought not to be less than that of officers of the A.E.C.
May I deal with the objections which I know the Secretary of State will raise against this very modest request? I think he will say first that chaplains are in an advantageous position in that, in common with Members of Parliament and those who are mentally deficient, they are not liable to be called up for compulsory military service. Neither do they have to serve in the ranks. I expect my right hon. Friend will tell us that chaplains enter the Service with the equivalent rank of captain at 15s. 4d. a day, whereas an ordinary officer obtains his commission normally after serving in the ranks, and does not earn as much as the chaplain until he has attained the rank of captain. All this is perfectly true, but the reason is that the chaplain is an older man and a specialist, for whom, incidentally, the demand is greater than the supply, and who has higher educational attainments, and who would normally, because of his age, be expected to have increased domestic responsibilities.
All this would not matter so much if the promotion of chaplains were rapid, but, in fact, it is almost negligible. I have been doing some research into the data given in the Army List, and I find from the July, 1944, Army List, which was the latest available to me, that 89 per cent. of the chaplains are chaplains fourth class, eight per cent. are chaplains third class, two per cent. are chaplains second class, and only one per cent. chaplains first class. I am well aware that the number of chaplains is related to the total strength of the Army; and for this reason I will be careful not to quote figures but will talk instead in terms of percentages. I find that exactly half the chaplains first class have been filling vacancies in the Regular Army establishment since the beginning of the war, and the same is true of chaplains second class and third class, which means that, to the extent of about half the places available in the higher ranks, promotion has been blocked for over five years. This is particularly hard on chaplains fourth class, the captains, whose chance of promotion is precisely nine to one against. The remedy I propose is that chaplains fourth class should be promoted to

major after three years' service if they are recommended as fit for promotion. That is my case. To it let me add this:
If my right hon. Friend has come here with his heart hardened against any alteration in the conditions of service, let me plead with him not to close the door. These are very deserving men. I could harrow the House if I chose, and if I had the time, with many tales of really hard cases. But my case does not rest upon sentiment but upon justice.

7.10 p.m.

Lient.-Commander Hutchison: I intervene to support the notable plea which has been put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. The case for improving the pay of Army chaplains was put in such a forcible manner by him that it is hardly necessary for me to amplify it. It has struck me, in looking through the answers to questions that I and other Members have had in recent months, that the chaplain service is rather in the position of being the Cinderella of the Army.

Mr. McKie: Is there any differentiation in pay between the chaplains of the Church of Scotland and of the Church of England?

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: No, Sir, there is a standard rate, but a very poor one in our submission. The chaplains are, on the whole, older men than the combatant officers and have family responsibilities. They have to live like the rest of us, and it is up to us in this House to try and obtain the best possible conditions of service for them. I understand from an answer which the Secretary of State gave me on 17th November that there are shortages of chaplains in all denominations, and I believe that in some cases the shortages are really serious. It is very necessary that there should be an adequate number of chaplains to accompany the field forces, and their conditions of service must be made reasonable so as to attract padres into the military service. We all know the great stresses and strains to which our fighting men are put, and it is necessary, in order that their morale can be at the highest pitch, that they should have the assistance of padres. For that reason I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the position and do something towards improving the emolu-


ments and the conditions of promotion of the chaplains.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I think that we have not stressed enough the position of the unit chaplain. In the field he is responsible for the spiritual morale of a battalion of 800 men, he is responsible for the burial of casualties in the unit, and he is usually responsible for the welfare of the men. He is living with the company commanders, adjutants and the commanding officer, and yet he is paid less than they are. I do not think that the chaplains want promotion, but they ought to be paid the same rates as other officers of equal rank. May I give an example of the type of men we have as chaplains? In my division at Matruh, the senior chaplain was aged 52. When we were caught by the Germans, that man finished up by fighting the Germans with bare fists and he was taken prisoner. He was repatriated, and at the age of 54 he was taken prisoner again at Arnhem. Are we going to pay that man less than the infantry officers and officers of the Army Education Corps or the R.A.M.C.?

7.15 p.m.

Major McCallum: I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and particularly to stress the point about the junior ranks of chaplains. The answers that have been received from the War Office stress the fact that the responsibilities of these chaplains are not equal to those of officers of the Army Pay Corps, the Army Dental Corps or the Army Educational Corps. The record of chaplains in this war more than bears comparison for front line work with that of those people. To suggest that the War Office will sit tight, harden its heart and refuse, means that we shall have to carry on this campaign on behalf of men who, though they may be non-combatant, work very efficiently and gallantly in the front line. Some of them have stayed in their posts and have been taken prisoner. For three or four years they have been looking after their fellow prisoners and one or two of them, when they had a chance of being repatriated, have preferred to remain with their men. To say that such a body of men should be classed lower than a member of the

Pay Corps, the Dental Corps or the Educational Corps is disgraceful.

7.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Let me start by saying that I hope that nothing I say this evening will lead any hon. Member to suppose that I do not appreciate and value the work done by Army chaplains. Field-Marshal Montgomery has over and over again impressed upon me the importance of their work, especially upon active service, and I am glad to get confirmation of the Field-Marshal's testimony from some hon. Members who have spoken to-day. Quite apart from the testimony of others, I should never be in danger of underrating the services of those who minister to the spiritual welfare of the individual soldier. Their work is, indeed, often beyond all praise and it is of a kind which, whether in the Army or outside, it has never been the custom to evaluate in terms of monetary remuneration. Indeed, it is impossible to evaluate it in such terms.
Two things I would like to say. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley) anticipated, quite rightly, that I should say this: that ministers of religion alone, among the whole community, except for two much smaller classes which he mentioned, are exempt, by reason of their calling, from compulsory service. They enter upon their work presumably having counted the cost beforehand. Indeed, I think I might with all reverence quote from the parable of the labourers in the vineyard:
Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way.
This very exemption from compulsion as a class invalidates some, at least, of the arguments put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. In particular, I think it invalidates the comparison with the doctor and the engineer; but there are other grounds for rejecting this comparison. First, I imagine that it is broadly true that most clergymen have the prospect of going back to their charges with their old position at least maintained. The doctor and the engineer are very liable to go back to a shrunken or damaged practice and to have to build it up again. On my second point, again


my hon. and gallant Friend anticipated my argument, but it is inevitable, when various arguments are elicited by a series of questions, that when we have an Adjournment Motion I should have to repeat my arguments particularly, as in this case, when I think their validity has been undisturbed. The second point is that the chaplain alone enters with the rank of captain. Doctors enter normally as subalterns, and in the Army Educational Corps they mostly enter as second lieutenants, quite often after service in the ranks and a period of training with an O.C.T.U. Incidentally, of course, on the question of absolute hardship as opposed to comparisons, a married chaplain gets a captain's allowances, and as those are exempt from Income Tax it represents a very substantial part of his remuneration.
The main crux of my argument lies in comparing a chaplain with a combatant officer. I am not in the least shaken in that comparison by the case put forward by hon. Members on the benches behind me. I maintain that the real crux of the matter lies in comparing the chaplain with the combatant officer. Here I do not think it is possible to admit the argument that chaplains enter at a comparatively late age and are entitled to special consideration. We have conscripted people up to very nearly 50 years of age in this war, and a large number of people in the thirties, and even in the forties, have been conscripted into the combatant arms of the Services. Apart from all this the combatant officer, first of all, must have had to serve in the ranks. When he has done so and been recommended, specially picked out, he has to undergo quite a considerable course in an O.C.T.U. If he passes this he is commissioned as a second lieutenant. After six months he becomes a lieutenant. After that there is no guarantee he will ever become a captain.
Let us make a comparison on this basis. Let us take, for simplicity, a married man with two children, and let us omit war service increments. Incidentally, these increments, as the House will remember, go to all serving personnel, officers and men, after three, four and five years. These increments have certainly reduced the argument of hardship in the case of those who have served for three years. I realise, however, that the case of hardship was only put by one Member, and

not pressed very strongly. Indeed, it could not, I think, be pressed very strongly, because war service grants are available to officers, as they are to other ranks, and by this time it has become well established that there is no element of humiliating charity in war service grants.
The case which has been put forward is based, in the main, on comparisons, and it is on that basis I will try to deal with it. The chaplain enters with 15s. 4d. a day plus, if he is a married man with two children, 9s. 6d. in family lodging allowance, I think, which is free of Income Tax. At the end of three years, apart from any question of promotion, his pay rises to 18s. 2d. a day. The combatant officer, after service in the ranks which may be only for months but may be for years, starts with 11s. a day pay plus allowances which I think are about the same, or possibly 1s. more than a captain's allowances—the family lodging allowance—because, as this House knows, family lodging allowances have been tapered to meet the case of the lower paid officers. At the end of three years' service as an officer he will certainly be a lieutenant, and as such will get 14s. 6d. a day plus about the same allowances. He may have been lucky enough to have become a captain, in which case he will get 16s. 6d. a day plus allowances. After three years actually as a captain he will get another 1s. per day.
On this basis comparing, not rank with rank, but their positions from the time of entry into the Service, and I maintain that is a proper comparison, the comparison is in favour of the chaplain. Personally, I am all against weighting the scales any further against the combatant officer than they may be under the existing code. I would still maintain this even though it is possible to quote the special case of doctors and some others who are possibly even better off. Personally, I think that in our post-war scales the remuneration of the combatant officer ought to be as high as that of the best of the professional officers. But that is neither here nor there. Then the hon. and gallant Member for West Aberdeen went on to say, "It is all very well, but see how much slower promotion is for chaplains." There is a very clear reason for that, which is that combatant officers do suffer a higher rate of casualties in the higher ranks.
In any case, I am bound to say that I do not think I could go to the Treasury in support of the proposal that chaplains should automatically become majors at the end of three years' service—total service—with the result that their pay becomes 27s. 2d. plus allowances. I know that the comparison is not fully valid, but it should be pointed out that under the time scales of promotion for the regular combatant officer, introduced in 1938, the subaltern does not become a captain until he has done eight years' service, and does not become a major until he has done 17 years' service.
It would be easy for me to take the line, in these matters of pay and promotion, of exuding sympathy all round, and leaving it to be inferred that it is only the wicked Treasury which prevents me from doing what hon. Members ask. But I have a conscience in these matters, and, bearing in mind the conditions for combatant officers, I have been unable, in spite of the arguments which hon. Members have addressed to me to-day, and which were addressed to me when I received two or three of them in a deputation, to think that what those hon. Members ask is justified. I must, therefore, take upon myself, in spite of the threats of my hon. Friend behind

me, whatever odium there is in saying so. Let me end as I began, by saying that this attitude does not in the least arise from any failure to recognise the worth of the Army chaplain's work. It arises from the conviction that the best work of all is that of the combatant officer. Nevertheless, nothing would induce me to underrate the value of the Army chaplain's work—it would be foolish and, worse, ungrateful. But it remains true that this work cannot be valued in terms of earthly remuneration, and I am sure that most chaplains fully recognise that.

Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Will my right hon. Friend address himself briefly to the difference between the rate of remuneration of the Army Educational Corps and that of the chaplains?

Sir J. Gregg: I have addressed myself to that. The Army Educational Corps officer falls into that class of professional officer which I referred to early in my remarks. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at HANSARD to-morrow, he will see that what I said covered that as well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Seven o'Clock.